I Am Not Anyone's Complement

CN: brief mention of transphobia

Sometimes I see people write things like “God made men and women in unique and complementary roles.”

This is usually in the context of some broader debate, about female pastors or submission, or same-sex marriage, so they write it like it's self-evident, as if that argument itself is a piece of evidence in their favor, and move on.

But I'm a scientist, and I like evidence. This statement isn't self-evident, and I'm pretty sure it's not even true.

Christianity and Asexuality

 Content note: this post discusses homophobic and acephobic attitudes

Recently, I've been thinking about the intersection of asexuality and Christianity. I saw a comment on Rachel Held Evans' blog post “If My Son or Daughter Were Gay,” from a mother asking for advice because her daughter had just come out as asexual. She noted that while homosexuality was frequently discussed on the blog (Rachel is a strong proponent of what I might call a progressive Christian attitude towards the LGBT* community, and often hosts discussion), asexuality had never been discussed.

Asexuality is in an odd place, compared to the other minority sexual orientations, when it comes to Christianity. Some religiously conservative Christians tolerate or even applaud asexuality while condemning all other non-heterosexual orientations. In that way, asexuality escapes the vitriol to which the LGBT* community is subjected*. But this leniency is often based out of a misunderstanding of asexuality-- and it's by no means universal. I know of other aces who've been told by Christians (and others) that their asexuality is sinful, or even that they're going to hell for it.

The lack of problem with the childfree life

Maybe I shouldn't be taking the bait at all, but this post by Kathleen Nielsen at the Gospel Coalition is so bad that I'm doing it anyway.

Ms. Nielsen is deeply concerned that people are choosing not to have children, and she offers three reasons why this choice is very, very selfish:

• children are a gift from God, so everybody should have them
• we need the mercy of God, so we should have children so there can be more Christians
• there won't be any having-of-children in heaven, so we need to have children now so we can share the Gospel with them

It may strike you, as it struck me, that these arguments are not very sensible. I can give someone a bicycle as a gift, but that does not mean I should give someone ten bicycles, or that I should give a bicycle to someone who has expressed a disinterest in bicycling. That would just make me a jerk.

The second two points are not even coherent enough to address. The world is not running out of people. If we really want to give children "labor and care," as Ms. Nielsen suggests-- and as I agree-- then we should start with the ones who are already here, like the 29,000 children under five who die each day from mostly preventable causes, like a lack of clean water or a disease for which these is a vaccine. There are plenty of people in this world already who are in need of the selfless love to which Christians are called. We do not need to make new people in order to find someone in need of love and mercy.

On a more sinister note, Ms. Nielsen writes like she has been appointed to judge the inner thoughts of human beings and decide who is "God's people" and who is not. This is not a role that any human can fill. We're supposed to leave that to God. When she writes

 The most basic problem is that the childfree life does not take God into account—God the Creator and giver of all gifts, including the gift of life.

she is pretending to know the relationship between God and another human being based solely on that person's attitude towards having children. It doesn't work like that. Without being psychic, you cannot determine to what extent someone takes God into account in their lives. And again, when she writes

Children are God's merciful means of growing his redeemed people, generation after generation, in all the nations of the world. They are infinitely worthy of labor and care—not only of the women who bear them but of all God's people, not one of whom lives childfree.

she is either misunderstanding what it means to be childfree, or implying that anyone who, by choice, is not a parent, is not Christian. Of course childfree people still contribute to the lives of the children around them. Many people cite this as a reason for being childfree, that they believe they can make more of a positive impact on the world by devoting their energies to something besides child-rearing. I am not any less childfree if I tutor elementary school kids, volunteer to babysit for a single parent, or dote on my little cousins and shower them with love and affection.

The other possible interpretation, that someone who is childfree is therefore not a Christian, is worse. That determination is not up to her. You cannot say that someone isn't Christian because they've chosen not to become a parent. The Bible does not say, anywhere, "By your nuclear family you shall be saved." Really. I promise.

Wings, Legs, and Feet, Oh My!

I noticed something interesting in the book of Leviticus last night. Here is Leviticus 11:20-23
as it appears in the New Revised Standard Version:

²⁰All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you. ²¹But among the winged insects that walk on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap on the ground. ²²Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. ²³But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.

There are no winged insects that "walk upon all fours." Insects, by definition, have six legs. The author may not have been using our modern scientific definition of "insects" (and probably wasn't), but there are no similar creepy-crawly things that have four legs either. Spiders and scorpions have eight. Centipedes, millipedes, and isopods have more.

Some people attempt to address this apparent contradiction between the Bible and nature by claiming that the back legs of the locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers don't count as legs, because they're used for leaping, not walking. But I think this misses the point. If these insects are exempt because they jump with their back legs and walk with their front two legs, what about all the insects that don't jump? What about cockroaches? (Yes, some cockroaches can fly. I'm sorry to break this to you if you didn't already know.)

If one defines "winged insects that walk upon all fours" as "winged insects that walk upon all fours in the sense that they use their back legs for jumping," then the "winged insects that walk upon all fours" are the same as "those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap on the ground." It's like defining fruit as apples, pears, and cherries, and then saying, "You can't eat any fruit, except apples, pears, and cherries."

Furthermore, and perhaps this is a translation issue, but note the bit about "those that have jointed legs above their feet." In this case, the back legs are being included in the feet tally. But verse 23 specifically says, "all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you" (emphasis mine). Even if one argues that the back legs of jumping insects shouldn't be counted as legs because they're used for jumping, their feet are still feet.

Why Young People are leaving the church

Dear church,

You don't get it.

You wring your hands and ask why Young People are leaving the church, and when we try to tell you, you fire us.  When we come forward with our honest questions, you tell us that the problem is we're having too much sex and it's making us doubt. 

The problem is that a lot of the time, you don't actually want to know why Young People are leaving. What you're really asking is, how can we convince Young People to stay without changing our bigotry, our intolerance, our sexism, our corruption, our hypocrisy, our terrible stewardship, and our grossly misplaced priorities? How can we convince Young People to stay without taking the logs out of our eyes? And when we tell you, you can't, you throw your hands up and decry our lack of morals.

Don't get me wrong: my generation is also bigoted, intolerant, sexist, corrupt, and hypocritical. But the institution that's supposed to model a better way for us is failing us.

In my lifetime, the one single issue that has motivated the church to its greatest heights of passion and activity has been banning same-sex marriage. It has not been ending poverty, or ending world hunger, or ending systematic injustice. You may think I'm wrong. I'm open to reasonable evidence. Show me the ballot initiatives to amend state constitutions to prohibit discrimination on any grounds. Show me the enormous rallies against child hunger. Show me the presidential candidates who give their position statements on poverty as a bellwether of their faith. Show me the denominations publicly chastising other denominations for not doing enough to feed the hungry. Show me the churches splitting away from their own denominations because those denominations aren't taking a firm enough stance against injustice.

You may now be saying, “But protecting the sanctity of marriage is important!” I am not going to argue with you about what the sanctity of marriage is or how it is best protected. I will simply ask, is preventing same-sex marriage more important than ending world hunger, human trafficking, slavery, sexual assault and rape, systemic poverty, economic exploitation, genocide, and our systematic degradation of God's creation? Because the church is acting like it is.

And if it is, then I don't want to be a part of your church.

I am not leaving the Church. But I am leaving your church. I am a Young Person, and I have told you why.

Will you listen?

Growing up Asexual in Christian Purity Culture

 Growing up asexual in Christian purity culture was weird, though I didn't realize it at the time.

I wasn't immersed in the strictest of it. I never took a purity pledge or went to a purity ball. I certainly was never expected to “court” rather than date. (I didn't date much, but that's a story for another time.) I knew, though, that my parents and the members of my church expected that I wouldn't have sex until I were married, and that I was supposed to regard premarital sex as sinful. There were a lot of other messages floating around about how I had to be prepared to resist this strong temptation, and I was. I was so prepared.

I was not, however, tempted.

I think I felt slightly smug, or at least accomplished, that “staying pure” was so easy for me. I didn't understand how anyone could possibly have a problem with it. I extrapolated from my not wanting sex or feeling attraction to anyone, to assuming that none of my peers felt attraction to anyone, either. I thought that they were having sex because of peer pressure. I thought that I was able to resist the temptation I was supposed to feel because I was so good at standing up to peer pressure. I probably felt a little superior. I made it to eighteen and was still expecting that at some point in the future, I would reach a natural age to “want” sex.

Thankfully, I grew out of the judging. I never grew out of not wanting sex. I was probably twenty before I started to realize that sex just wasn't my particular temptation, and it took more time after that to realize that I was, in fact, asexual. I'm not sure, but I think the messages I received from my Christian subculture, that sexual temptation was inevitable and I needed to be prepared to resist it, delayed my realization that there was something inherently different about me. Because sexual attraction was presented as universal, along with the temptation to have sex, I thought for years that I would eventually experience it. On one hand, I got off much easier than some of my peers-- I had no internal battle between what my church told me was right and what I wanted to do. On the other hand, the messages I got kept me in the dark about my own sexual orientation for a long time.

I didn't escape damage from purity culture entirely. Like many other people, I was convinced that masturbation was a terrible sexual sin, and it took me a long time to get over that. But in some way, because I simply had no desire or reason whatsoever to go against its demands, being asexual gave me a pass from some of the worst experiences of purity culture. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that.

Do You Want To Pray?

Recently, I participated in a comment thread on Feministe that included discussion of whether or not church food pantries are allowed to proselytize with their distributions. Today I saw this on the news, about a food pantry that has lost its federal food contributions because of its policy of asking clients if they want to pray.

I don't have much to say about this. I think it's good that we have these sorts of safeguards to prevent getting food from being tied to doing something religious. Sure, in a perfect world, you'd be able to ask someone if they wanted to pray without putting them in a bad situation, but here the power dynamics are so skewed that that can't possibly be the case.

My opinion is that the church should "proselytize" by doing good deeds without comment-- that is, if you're going to give someone food, don't give them food and make them attend a church service. Just give them the food. That will show them the love of Christ more than any strings could possibly do. Also, if your "gift" is dependent on them doing something you want them to do, it's not really a gift, is it?

I hope this food pantry finds some way to serve its clients and still receive federal support. The article mentions ways some other pantries have dealt with the situation, like having brochures and prayer rooms. I also hope this doesn't become another example of evil horrible liberals trampling all over religious freedom.

The Modesty Survey, part two

(Initial comments were here.)

What is this?

It’s a rhetorical question— I know I’ve actually read through this before, and found it really bizarre and misogynistic, but I didn’t remember it being this bad.

Statement: “Denim jackets with faded sections on the chest draw too much attention to the bust.” [agree/disagree]

“Absolutely! Do you WANT people to think that section of your clothing is getting rubbed a lot more?”

Statement: “It is okay for girls to wear tighter and/or more revealing clothes if they are working out.” [agree/disagree]

“If one so implicitly desires to work out in an “exercise bra,” they can put a home-gym in their basement.”

“However, if they are working out in a room full of brutes then where’s the wisdom or purity in that? Be discerning.”

“When possible it would be better to not work out/exercise in the presence of guys so that modesty is not an issue and comfort can be chosen instead.”

“Only if there are no guys around. Girls should avoid working out around guys as much as possible.”

“Just as at the beach, the opera and the girls’ volleyball game, guys’ hormones don’t magically shut off at the health club. Obviously, if there aren’t any guys around, the rules are somewhat different. Some activities that are co-ed should be segregated.”

Statement: “Immodest clothing is not a problem (for you) when a girl in your own family wears it.” [agree/disagree]

“My younger sister, 14, is just recently becoming more of a young lady. It was not too long ago that I (for the first time) had to bring up her dress to her. It’s not a question of incest. It’s a question of instinct. I could probably think for a moment and realize that it’s my sister, but why be put in that position in the beginning?” [this from a 22-year-old, by the way]

“I radically disagree. It does not matter if the girl is my sister or not, it is still an assault on godly beauty, and my chastity.”

“Even my Mom can attract my attention if she isn’t careful.” [if she isn’t careful. If SHE isn’t careful. If she isn’t CAREFUL. !!!]

Statement: “A technically modest outfit can be a stumbling block when it has attached sexual associations (e.g. a “school girl” outfit after Britney Spears released a music video where she was dressed as an “innocent” school girl, but acted very provocatively.)” [agree/disagree]

“It is a bad reflection on the girl (to me) when they knowingly emulate a style with obvious immoral or immodest connotations. And how are we to know if they are not doing this on purpose?”

Statement: “Showing any cleavage is immodest.” [agree/disagree]

“Any amount of cleavage immediately inspires the mind to think of breasts, which should be for only a girl’s husband. And thoughts of breasts lead to more sinful thoughts.”

“I think that clothes that show cleavage should be purged out of the wardrobe.” [whoops, there goes half my wardrobe…]

“Most guys like to look at girls breasts anyways, if a girl is showing it off it’s almost like your telling him it is okay.”

“It’s probably my largest temptation. Keep it hidden for the husband.”

Statement: “Exposing the chest below the collarbone, even without cleavage, is immodest.” [agree/disagree]

“Immodesty has to start somewhere, we should not be trying to walk the line, but flee from it.”

“I agree mildly—let me explain. The more skin that is exposed the more risk of being a stumbling block to a brother. And another caution is that if you have a dress that has a neck that comes down past the collar bone (I have seen it especially on those that have squarish necks) you have much more of a chance when you bend over of exposing yourself. (and don’t kid yourself by saying “I won’t bend over”) Most often from the dresses that I have seen that expose the chest bellow the collar bone are immodest if you bend over (cleavage or worse will be visible.) Thus I believe that it is generally immodest to wear a dress that exposes below the collarbone. Does this make sense? I do not think that it is necessarily immodest for me to see your collarbone, but almost all dresses that exposes your collar bone will be immodest.”

[but see also:] “As a man, I don’t really see how anyone could really defend this position. Never once in my long career of being in a locker room and hearing lewd talk have I ever heard a man say “DUDE! DID YOU SEE HER COLLAR BONE!?!? AND THE TWO INCHES OF SKIN BENEATH IT?!”“

Statement: “Seeing even an inch of skin between the bottom of a girl’s shirt and her pants is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree] [and have you noticed how these questions are written in such a leading fashion?]

“I wouldn’t say it’s a stumbling block, but it says something about the girl if she’s wearing a shirt that doesn’t come down all the way. A girl that dresses like that is generally going to be immodest anyway, in my opinion.”

Statement: “Semi-transparent sleeves are a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]

“They are often a symptom of girls trying to attract guys with their bodies under the guise of modesty. Check your hearts.”

Statement: “It is a stumbling block for a girl to sit with her legs spread apart.” [agree/disagree]

“Respect yourself. That’s not respectful.”

“It is not a stumbling block, but it is definitely unladylike.”

“Not a stumbling block, but poor manners.”

“For one thing, it’s not the way any girl should sit in the first place.”

Statement: “It is a stumbling block to see a girl lying down, even if she’s just hanging out on the floor or on a couch with her friends.” [agree/disagree]

“Again a lot depends on what she’s wearing, exactly how she’s lying, the atmosphere of the situation, and the state of mind of the guy observing her, but there is a very real possibility (perhaps probability) that it could be problematic, especially if the guy is already attracted to the girl.”

“I think there should be a careful evaluation on the part of the girl before lying down around a bunch of guys. However, in terms of the inherent modest/immodesty of the action, I can’t say it is a stumbling block by itself. In certain clothes, however, it would be a clear, 100% problem.”

“Somehow, lying down just seems to draw attention to all of the wrong places (face down=buttocks; side=hips; face up=breasts)”

“Depends on how she’s lying, though I lean towards it being immodest.”

“Even modest cloths can become immodest when some people lie down. And all around it’s not very proper. Although if a girl had to lay down I find it less of a stumbling block if she laid down on her side instead of her back.”

“It can almost look “inviting.”“

Statement: “A girl bending over and exposing her lower back is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]

“Yes, a bit. I love it when a lady places her hand behind her to cover her lower back. I think that is so thoughtful!”

“It does not necessarily mean that I would imply immodesty upon that person, because such breaches are usually ‘accidental’ and I would avert my eyes. But don’t think it’s ok to keep on doing it carelessly.”

Statement: “Lifting a long skirt any higher than the knee in order to step over something is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]

“Anywhere you’d need to do that, you should probably be wearing [modest] pants.”

“I have known a lot of people that only wear skirts and they have done pretty much everything in them and they have never had to hike their skirts up past their knees.”

“Yes, it is. I’m tempted to see how high your going to pull it up and my imagination starts to wander away from where I’d like it. It doesn’t have to go above your knee for you to step over something, especially if it’s a really loose skirt. If it does then you should probably not step over it or get another girl to help you.”

“It should not come above the knee. Pants or skirts should always be at least knee length and stay that far down.”

[but see also:] “Lifting long skirts is *necessary* if a woman wants to wear those garments while being active. It is certainly not the responsibility of women to stay inside all day rather than risk tempting someone; when it comes to necessary activities, it’s guys’ responsibility to control ourselves.”

Statement: “Seeing a girl’s chest bounce when she is walking or running is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]

“This is mostly an issue with undersized and push-up bras. General tip: Uncomfortable bras probably weren’t designed to be uncomfortable, but rather to attract guys.”

“When walking, yes. Running is more understandable, and I usually am not tempted to look at the chest of a girl running anyway.”

“Running/exercise garments are cheap. Please use them.” [they’re really, really not]

“Please don’t let your chest bounce. I’m sorry, but that can really be distracting.”

“I can’t agree more. Girls need to take this into consideration before taking off and running.”

I could go on and on, but most of this speaks for itself. Oh no, I have breasts, and they move when I walk! The horror! (If anyone without breasts has, for any reason, doubts about the ridiculousness of this criticism, try this experiment: fasten two filled water balloons to your chest. Try to move without making them bounce.) Women, beware lest you bend over, exercise, walk, lay, nay sit in the presence of a man lest you do it too ~sexily~! It's best for you to wear a potato sack and not move at all.

Have I mentioned that this survey has pictures? It is illustrated with pictures of the immodest fashions in question-- if they're so alluring, why are the survey-makers putting them in the way of the boys and men taking this survey? It's uncomfortably reminiscent of a bunch of dudes sitting around perving over pictures of women and then blaming the women for making them do it.

The picture at the top shows a woman who's covering her face below the eyes. Is this really the ideal the bloggers are holding up? Do they realize that if women dressed like this, the only thing it would accomplish is raising a generation of men with eye fetishes?

I also recall that, when asked if they would make an equivalent survey about men, the survey-makers simply said "No." This is not about modesty. It's about controlling women. If I said, “Men, when you sit with your legs open it’s a stumbling block because it highlights the fact that you have external genitalia, please stop doing that,” I’d probably be called a freak and told to get therapy for my abnormal lusts. If I said, "Men, everyone knows women are into big biceps, so you should wear long-sleeved shirts at all times so as not to tempt us," I'd get a lecture on propriety. If I said, "Men, your pecs are too sexy, you must always wear baggy shirts," I'd be told that women simply don't work that way. This is a double standard, about controlling the behavior of 50% of the people on the planet, and I'm not sure what it has to do with Christianity.

(The same blog that hosts the survey also hosts a lot of stuff about reviving chivalry [women, pretend you need help to make men feel good about themselves!] and what makes a "real man" and a "real woman," so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the survey. But I am, and what's more, I'm thoroughly creeped out.)

P.S. Apparently I'm not a real woman. Oh no! Whatever shall I do?

Why is it so hard to be truthful about Planned Parenthood? A response.

Dianna Anderson has a guest post up at Think Christian: Why is it so hard to be truthful about Planned Parenthood? There was one comment in particular to which I wanted to reply, but to create an account required my zip code, so I'm replying here.

Dianna's post was a response to some rhetoric that's come up re: the Komen situation, and it laid out some basic information about Planned Parenthood's services and funding-- they do a lot of stuff that isn't abortion, and abortions are not federally funded. One commenter replied (spread over two comments, which I have excerpted), "The funding of PP is always supporting abortion. By giving them money to support non-abortion services, one has allowed them have more money to perform abortions. It's the same reason the government does not allow money to be sent to terrorist organization, even if a particular dollar is used in humanitarian good, other money is then freed up for the sinful aspects of the organization. So, the government should not at all be funding abortion services providers, even if tax-dollars never get spent on abortions... I still stand by my other assertion that any money given to PP indirectly supports abortion."

So here's my question, for people who are pro-life and support what the Komen Foundation did. Say this assertion is true-- if any money given to Planned Parenthood allows other money to be used for abortions-- at what point does this justify not funding any of their other services? How many unaborted babies justify how many women dying of uncaught breast cancer, or of HIV/AIDS? And are you, indeed, willing to make that sort of calculation, trading lives for lives?

Think about that. If you make this argument, are you willing to say that it is okay to let people die of cancer and STDs in order to prevent abortion?

I'm not. I'm emphatically not. I'm pro-life; I want there to be fewer abortions in the world. But unfunding health care for some of the most vulnerable segments of society is not the way to do it.

Hippie To-Do List

I'm not putting a time limit on this since that will just stress me out without contributing to productivity:

a.) plant spinach
r.) sprout things
d.) figure out how to make my own equivalent of Clif bars/Lara bars
s.) start baking bread again
@.) set up composting
q.) set up another drying rack or a clothesline
o.) look into ways to carry groceries home on my bike when I have too many for my backpack-- bags on my wrist, especially reusable bags which are bigger, tend to destabilize me just a bit
5.) see if it's possible to buy my electricity from a renewable source through electric company
*.) break out the crockpot!
k.) learn to make my own taffy apples
x.) general food preservation skills
n.) insulate the water heater
^.) look into insulating drapes
m.) get a space heater/heat lamp

This is my current hippie to-do list. I don't know what would be on my feminist to-do list or my asexual to-do list if I had one-- if it would even make sense to have one-- except for one item on both, which is "become more self-sufficient." The other day I bought a piece of used furniture which was too heavy to lift, and got it into the house by tipping it end-over-end up the stairs and through the house until I could slide it. Ingenuity, it works.

I have a general sense of what's on my Christian to-do list, but I'm not sure I could or should put it into words.

For Those Who Live Alone

This morning during church I found a prayer for those who live alone in the Book of Common Prayer:

"Almighty God, whose Son had nowhere to lay his head: Grant that those who live alone may not be lonely in their solitude, but that, following in his steps, they may find fulfillment in loving you and their neighbors; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

I like so many things about this prayer. I like that it distinguishes between loneliness and solitude, and that it acknowledges that people can find fulfillment in platonic love. And I like that it exists at all, and is in the church book for the fourth largest communion (or group of churches-- sort of like a denomination) in the world.

This is Not Pro-Life

Two days ago, someone threw a Molotov cocktail at a Planned Parenthood clinic in northern Texas. This particular clinic provides health screenings and contraception, but does not perform abortions.

As I have written about in the past (though I can't find the post at the moment), I am pro-life. To me, being pro-life means things like promoting safe and protected sex so that people can choose whether or not they want to try to conceive, and providing support for children after they are born. Using violence to achieve pro-life ends is a contradiction in terms. It is wrong, and it is not acceptable. This is not the pro-life movement, or the Christianity, that I stand for.

I also note that, in the "American Independent" article, the incident is referred to as "possible arson." Possible? How do you accidentally set something on fire with a Molotov cocktail??

Koinonia

At a church service last week, I learned a new word: koinonia. It's a Greek word; according to Wikipedia (I know, I know, my old professors are shaking their fingers at me), it means "communion by intimate participation... the essential meaning of the koinonia embraces concepts conveyed in the English terms community, communion, joint participation, sharing and intimacy...In the New American Standard Bible, it is translated "fellowship" twelve times, "sharing three times, and "participation" and "contribution" twice each."

Many asexuals find themselves trying to invent new forms of relationships from scratch, since sex is, in American culture, at the center of romantic relationships, and romantic relationships are privileged above all others except possibly, in certain circumstances, the parent-child bond (though only unidirectionally-- it's considered acceptable to value your child above your romantic partner, but if you value your parent above your romantic partner, people will think you're weird). This goes doubly for aromantics and greyromantics, since we have even more trouble with the dominant forms of relationships. (David Jay has some great essays about this concept at Love from the Asexual Underground.)

It occurred to me, as I listened to the sermon, that the church, at its best, can serve as a model for the type of supportive community/the type of nurturing relationships that some aces (of any romantic orientation) want. Community? Joint participating? Sharing and intimacy? All without necessitating romantic attachment or shared genetic material? Yes, yes please!

What We Can Learn from the Rapture That Wasn't

The end of the world, as predicted by Family Radio, has not happened. I've watched the whole thing unfold with a sense of cringing, feeling bad for what Family Radio's adherents when May 22nd rolled around and they realized they'd given up their life savings, their kids' college funds, etc, for a mistake. There have been reports of people committing suicide for reasons related to the expected apocalypse, which is tragic.

But I can't help but wonder what the world would look like if more Christians had their zeal. They could have just sat in a compound somewhere and waited for the end of the world, but they tried to get the message out to as many people as they could in order to help them. It was the wrong message, but they spread it very well.

What if we had that passion? What if we sold our stuff and used the money to build wells and end world hunger? What if we gave up our spare time and used it to build houses? What if Christians made the news in a big way for something positive for once? What if we captured the world's attention by trying to be as selfless and loving as we are commanded to be?

It's a hard thing to believe in, honestly; I've been stuck in a rut in my faith for months now, and I feel too flawed to think that I would be able to contribute to something like that. But... believing in hard things is what we're all about, isn't it?

Bad Stewardship

I was watching this video about big cats and catnip, produced by Big Cat Rescue of Florida, and there's something I really, really don't get: how can anyone look at an animal like that and think it's better off as a coat-- or an aphrodisiac?? That's such a waste of what God has given us.

I think as Christians, we make big mistakes about what being a steward of the earth means. Remember all those stories in the Gospels about bad stewards who mistreat their master's stuff when the master is away? I have to wonder what we'll say if and when God asks us what we did with his stuff-- "Where are my big cats?"-- and all we have to point to is a pile of skins and some poached meat. "Where are my rhinoceroses? Where are my thylacine? What did you do with the wetlands I created to beautify the planet, purify the water, and nurture the young sea animals?"

I live in a city. I am not anti-progress. I'm not advocating that we all go live in grass huts-- clean water and window screens have saved millions, if not billions, of lives. But, when God made the planet and gave us dominion over the creatures on it, it didn't have any skyscrapers, malls, concrete parking lots, or oil spills. Why are we trying to make the planet over in our image? Why are we playing God?