Protecting those born alive

It is 100% obvious that a baby, born alive, deserves appropriate medical care. That's why I'm glad the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed....... in 2002. That's right, in 2002. It passed the Senate unanimously (that means some democrats voted for it). This bill defines any born alive infant as a full human being with all attendant rights, regardless of the method of birth (labor, cesarean, failed abortion). If you're keeping score at home, murder is already illegal, as is medical neglect. This bill, which has been in effect since 2002, makes it explicit that those terminating or neglecting an infant born alive are guilty of these crimes. 

Democrats are not advocating infanticide. Parents and medical providers want the option to provide palliative care for terminally ill babies if that is what families choose. The bill that failed today would leave providers open to prosecution for helping families make these decisions. State bills that have recently passed in NY and VT are aimed at ensuring this option, including palliative abortion for non-viable fetuses. Democratic politicians have, unfortunately, done a poor job of articulating this in widely publicized statements. I believe the VT bill is a bit too extreme in fact - but not in intent - by allowing for late term abortion in the event of threats to the mother's mental health. I believe the intent is that mothers should not be forced into the emotionally devastating circumstance of continuing a non-viable pregnancy until it terminates naturally. I also believe it is a valid concern that maternal depression or anxiety could be used as a rote justification for late term abortion of a healthy, viable baby. That being said, I also trust medical providers to uphold their oaths to do no harm, and do not believe doctors would perform late term abortions simply because a mother was experiencing depression. 

I get it... Babies are beautiful and wonderful and I love my babies to the moon and back. But unfortunately, the world is not always sunshine and roses. If I knew my baby was suffering, and there was no chance at survival, I would want to ease their passing and surround them with love for that short time, instead of making them endure invasive and painful attempts to prolong their life. Another mother might choose differently. That is her right. 

Adults of sound mind get to make these end-of-life decisions for ourselves. But babies cannot decide what course of medical treatment to pursue, and I firmly believe that parents, under the advice of medical experts, have the right to do what they think is best for their children. 

Yoga Pants: Oh the humanity!

This post will mostly be a re-hash of my post about modesty, but I felt the need to directly rebut “That Day I Wore Yoga Pants.” It is written by Mrs. M, whose husband really likes/really doesn’t like yoga pants.

Mrs. M’s Myth #1: It’s His Job Not to Look

Some highlights:

“While men are responsible to honor us with their eyes and minds, when we dishonor ourselves by what we wear, the real unfairness is to the men.”“It is not just his job not to look: it is our responsibility to provide nothing provocative to look at.”

I have the following problems with these statements:

It assumes women are dishonoring themselves when they wear something that causes men to lust. I instead claim that women dishonor themselves only if they dress a certain way to please others, instead of themselves. If a woman wears yoga pants by her own free choice, she is not dishonoring herself. To say so supposes that a woman’s body is inherently sinful. Women exist as both people and sexual beings. It seems to me that all this modesty-vs-permissiveness debate wants to eliminate one of these, and reduce women to either a sexual object or a real person, but not both. 

This also allows an avenue for judging other women. Even if we dress “modestly,” whatever that means, other women may still draw men’s attention. All of the sudden they are shirking their “responsibility.” This part of her post really stuck out to me:

“As we walked into the estate store Mr. M glanced at my outfit. The pants I had found in my harried search were work out capris – otherwise known as yoga pants. ‘You know…’ He said. ‘You are dressed a lot like those girls you always comment on at the gym.’We had talked about this before. Mr. M has requested, not commanded, that I refrain from wearing the pants to the gym, and really not in public at all.  But I’d ignored the request, and here I was walking down the sidewalk in them.‘I was kind of surprised you wore them.’ He said sadly.”

Here was an opportunity for her husband to rebuke her, rightly, for judging other women, and instead he was like “hey, you are doing that thing you always judge other women for, you should stop doing that thing because you are right to judge them for it.”

Taken to it’s natural conclusion, this philosophy results in restrictive dress codes, such as burkas. Now, I have no problem if a woman wants to wear a burka to honor their religious beliefs. But if they are doing so because a man told them they need to because otherwise he will lust after her, I have a problem with that. Who gets to decide what is provocative to look at? Which brings me to:

Mrs. M’s Myth #2: Setting Standards is Legalistic

She says this is a myth, but then proceeds to pay lip service to the idea of women deciding for themselves, in conference with God of course, what constitutes modesty. Then, however, she tries to convince the reader that yoga pants are non-negotiable:

“I’m not here to write a list of rules to be broken or ignored, but rather to talk about real issues that address real young women. I realize that it is not my job to write your personal standards of modesty. But since we are on the topic of yoga pants, let me share some things Mr. M commented to me when I was writing this post:‘Yoga pants make it difficult to work out when the girls are right there and the pants are so tight, it’s basically like the woman is naked. A friend of mine even said when a girl wears yoga pants… it shows all the form and features while covering up flaws, like imperfections of the skin or cellulite. They are designed to be appealing.’Additionally, a young man in a men’s group Mr. M once attended upheld this view. He told the men it was tough for him to try to work out, where there are girls wearing yoga pants doing stretches right beside him. It was a struggle not to lust after them. He would have to make himself leave the vicinity to do his workout with the still-present threat of remembering their image and stumbling later on. Yet another friend told Mr. M that it pained and concerned him that his girlfriend would go to the gym in her yoga pants to work with her personal trainer, but he didn’t feel he could ask her to stop without being perceived as controlling.”

Again, I have several problems with this:

She is waffling about whether or not objective standards of modesty make sense. She says it’s not her job to dictate other women’s modesty, but she seems to feel that her personal conviction, yoga pants, is a no-go for every woman. Obviously, there are women out there who feel just as convicted about short-vs-long hair, make-up-vs-no-make-up, sleeves-vs-no-sleeves, and many other issues. Should all these be objective standards, too? Never mind the fact that there are women who feel convicted in both directions about these issues. 

Additionally, I’m appalled at the self-centered-ness of her husband’s attitude about yoga pants. You go to a gym to work out. Unless it is a men-only gym, there are going to be women there, also working out. Working out is an inherently physical activity. You are going to be confronted with women’s bodies at the gym. If you can’t handle that and still be able to work out, that’s on you. Also, while yoga pants may be appealing, I disagree that they are designed to be appealing. They are designed for freedom of movement, and compression, because they are meant to be worn during an athletic pursuit. This attitude that women’s bodies and clothing exist for men (and this is either good or bad, depending) views the world through the lens of “how does it affect me,” rather than acknowledging that other people may have their own reasons for their actions. As I wrote in my own post about modesty, women have any number of reasons for their own actions. How it affects random men they don’t know is pretty far down on the list of considerations. Saying women shouldn’t wear clothing designed for exercise while exercising is tantamount to saying men shouldn’t wear well-tailored suits at work, because it might cause women to lust.

“Modesty” in it’s common modern, Christian-y, usage really just means “slightly more covered up than average/current trends.” Modesty is not some magic immutable standard without reference to the culture of the day. If you drop a fully-dressed woman from 1945 into 1743, people think she’s in her underwear (but seriously, if you are not hung up on modesty - you should watch Outlander).

Mrs. M’s Myth #3: Men don’t care what I wear.

Personally, this is not an argument I’ve ever heard. Of course men notice women. So? Should I try to be ugly? Or try to be invisible so men don’t ever have to see me?

Mrs. M’s Myth #4: Lust is HIS problem.

This one is similar to #1, in my opinion. She elaborates:

“When I give into my desire to for a man’s attention, at the expense of his endeavor to honor God, I am giving in to the lust of my flesh and encouraging the lust of his eyes. I am also expressing pride by ignoring God’s command for ‘decency and propriety’ since I claim to worship Him. I am becoming Eve.”

I guess her point here is that women lust, too? Only apparently the way we lust is by encouraging men to lust? I don’t really know. I agree that lust is not an exclusively male problem, but I disagree that male lust is my problem to fix. That is skirting dangerously close to “rape prevention is a woman’s responsibility.” Of course I take precautions, but the point is we should be teaching men not to lust/not to rape. To include a quote from my previous post:

Relating this back to modesty: If you consider a woman less pure after you’ve looked at her, maybe you should gouge out your eyes. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that somewhere.

Mrs. M’s Myth #5: Modesty is Just Something I Do.

She says: 

“Our choices in how we dress – how short our skirt is, how low our shirt is, how tight our pants are – is the clearest reflection of our personal priorities and our openness to letting God’s Word alter our lives. I realize that is a bold statement, but it is very, very true.”

I’m sorry… she just said our personal appearance is the clearest reflection of our openness to letting God’s Word alter our lives.

Not whether we care for the poor.

Not whether we love our neighbor.

Not whether we heal the sick.

Not whether we reflect Christ’s love in our personal relationships.

Not whether we show Christ to our children.

How. Tight. Our. (Yoga). Pants. Are.

Modesty, Purity and Objectification of Women

Today I will be talking about two questions:

1. Should I, as a woman, dress a certain way, for the benefit of others? Largely, my answer to this question is no.

2. How should my faith affect my sexuality throughout the different seasons of life?

The Myth of Modesty

I have come to the conclusion that I must dress in a way that makes me feel comfortable, first and foremost. That may sound selfish, but if I am uncomfortable in my own clothes, I can’t make as great an impact on the world. Now, it just so happens I think of myself as someone who dresses modestly. However, I’m sure some might disagree based on certain things I wear. I have some objections to the idea of dressing modestly for the benefit of others.

1. It limits personal responsibility for thoughts and actions. This is the most important reason. The message that a woman’s body can “cause” a man to sin is dangerous, in my opinion. Looking at a female, noticing she is attractive, or even having an involuntary physical reaction to looking at a female are not sins. It becomes a sin when a man dwells on her body and begins to covet her, and those thoughts are completely within the control of the man, and out of control of the woman. No matter how a woman dresses, a man could lust after her. On the flip side, I contend that men typically do not go around lusting after every woman they see wearing shorts. Trying to prevent the sin of lust by dressing a certain way is futile, which brings me to #2:

2. It is a fool’s errand. Related to 1., basically what I mean by this is that no matter how I dress, there could always be someone who looks at me and thinks I am dressed immodestly (if they are making it a spiritual issue), or simply that they “don’t want to see that” (if they are just expressing an opinion). Well, if you don’t want to see it, don’t look. If there were a hypothetical person who took either moral offense or fashion offense at the color orange, no one would indulge them by refraining from wearing orange. Furthermore, no matter how modestly I dress, there will always be those who choose to dress differently (less modestly, you might say) than I, which negates any benefit of me dressing modestly to society as a whole or to men in particular.

3. Modesty is highly contextual and ever-evolving. I try to dress in a manner that is appropriate for the context I will be in. That being said, when I dress “professionally,” it is certainly possible that colleagues may think I look inappropriate, because they have a different notion of what “professional” means. For example, I have heard it said that a woman wearing make-up cannot be taken seriously when giving a presentation in the sciences. In contrast, I have heard it said that a woman not wearing make-up is distracting. Furthermore, what is considered acceptable professional attire will vary from workplace to workplace. Beyond that even, imagine wearing your “modest” one-piece bathing suit to Sunday morning worship. I’m guessing most people would think you were dressed immodestly. Ultimately, I choose to use common sense and dress within societal norms, while not worrying specifically about whether individuals within that society will judge me to be dressed immodestly. You can spend all your energy trying to make sure you look exactly right and modest for each context you may encounter, or you can instead devote all that energy to living life.

St. Jerome, wearing no shirt, being “tempted” by fully clothed ladies. Here’s a quote from one of his letters: “Your very dress...is an index of your secret feelings. For it ... trails along the ground to make you appear taller than you are….And when in public you for modesty’s sake cover your face, like a practised harlot you only show what is likely to please.” (emphasis added) It sounds to me like he was the one with a problem.

Recommended reading about modesty:

“Women Swiftly Running Out of Things that Aren’t Sexy” by Bad Catholic http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2014/06/women-swiftly-running-out-of-things-that-arent-sexy.html

“Modesty: I don’t think it means what you think it means” by Rachel Held Evans

http://qideas.org/articles/modesty-i-dont-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

The Problem with Purity

I grew up in the era of “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” and True Love Waits. I appreciate what my parents and youth leaders were trying to do - instill in me the value of monogamy preserved in marriage, and save me a lot of heartache along the way. Somewhere along the lines, though, the popular message of the day taught me several things:

1. Purity was only my responsibility - boys cannot control themselves so you have to be extra careful.

1b. Your body causes boys to lose control so you have to cover it up - see previous section.

Obviously the idea that boys cannot control themselves is false, and teaching it to girls could be seen as contributing to rape culture by blaming victims of sexual assault for “tempting” their attackers.

2. Your virginity is the gift you should save for your husband - if you don’t have it to give, what good are you to him?

Prioritizing virginity to the highest degree is objectification just as much as pornography is. It is telling a girl that the thing of worth she has to offer her husband is her untouched body. Obviously, it should go without saying that the thing of worth a girl has to offer her husband (or whomever she chooses) is her whole self as a person.

3. Any boy that tells you he loves you is lying to get in your pants - from this I learned that any boy must not love me if he wanted me sexually. This one in particular, coupled with the flip side of the coin which Ryan was taught (if you love her - don’t sexualize her), caused no small amount of struggle in our early marriage.

Let me try to sum up: I was taught that my female body was both dangerous, and thus needed to be covered, and that it was this great gift I was giving my husband (I can hear my poor brain whispering, "but I have a great personality"). Since my husband ended up being someone who grew up in church with me, he was getting the other side of this message, which is that you don't pressure girls, you try really hard not to have sexual thoughts about girls. Due to Jesus magic, even after being told all this, we were told our sex life would be awesome once we were married. I can tell you, once you've been practicing being ashamed of your body for 5 years, and practiced not having sexual thoughts about girls you know, it's really hard to do a total 180 on both of those and enjoy the honeymoon.

Lastly, one unfortunate lesson I never learned at church is that it wasn’t my fault if a boy pushed himself on me. I certainly don’t consider myself the victim of rape, or anything so dramatic. However, there were experiences in my youth that involved lack of consent on my part, and after the fact, my attitude, informed by the above messages, was “well, the horse is out of the barn, no reason to refrain from that activity anymore.”

As I said, I was not taught these things directly by my parents or youth leaders. However the popular materials (videos, books) that circulated around the Christian community at the time tended to advocate these views.

I will be raising my children to understand the benefits of lifelong monogamy. However, I will teach them that each person, male or female, must take responsibility for their own actions. I pray that they won’t be ashamed of their bodies the way I was, and that they can have a healthy relationship with their own sexuality through-out life. I will be teaching them about the importance of consent for any sexual activity at any time.

If God created us, he created us as sexual beings. I have to believe that we are not to be ashamed of our bodies or our sexuality. Of course they are intended to be intimate, shared within the confines of a loving relationship, but I am convinced there must be a way to accomplish this end without teaching young people that sex is shameful.

Recommended Reading: “Naked and Ashamed” http://theotherjournal.com/2014/03/03/naked-and-ashamed-women-and-evangelical-purity-culture/

Appendix: Modesty and Motherhood

Of particular relevance to me at this point in my life is the breastfeeding-in-public as a modesty or courtesy issue. Really, I look at this the same way I look at modesty in general. When a person goes out into public, they open themselves up to the possibility of seeing a wide range of people and activities. In America, most states have laws that protect breastfeeding as something people have the right to do in public. So, when you go out in public, it is possible you will see a nursing mother. Just like it is possible you will see man wearing no shirt, or a woman in short shorts, or someone with an offensive (to you) slogan on their T-shirt.

Breasts exist to feed babies. Because they were for so long essential to nourishing offspring, they eventually became attractive to men in a mate (on the evolutionary scale). Because of that, they have been sexualized. However, even though they are involved in reproduction in the sense that they are involved in nourishing the young, they are not (necessarily) involved in sex. Asking women to forgo using them for their intended purpose in public just because people find them sexually attractive is silly. You might as well say people cannot show their legs while walking.

My suspicion is that people often assume anyone in public that is doing something they find offensive has no good reason for doing so. “Why couldn’t they just do this differently?” they ask. Well, let me tell you: It is unreasonable to ask mothers to simply stay home for the duration of their nursing relationship. Nursing is recommended to at least 1 year, and newborns frequently nurse for as long as 45 minutes at a time with only an hour between feedings. You can’t load up the crapload of baby supplies and expect to get all your errands accomplished in the time between feedings. So, the idea that a baby will never get hungry in public is just not reasonable.

Next, sometimes using a nursing cover was not practical for me. If it is extremely hot, for instance, it could be unsafe for the baby. There is a reason it is not recommended to put a blanket in the crib until 1 year. And yet, we expect people to throw a blanket over the head of an 8 week old? Personally, there were times I felt using the cover drew more attention to the fact that I was nursing than if I had simply discretely nursed without a cover. Additionally, people may believe that by not using a cover they are contributing to the normalization of breastfeeding, which an important public health goal. I personally would certainly never begrudge a mother for covering up while nursing, or keeping nursing private. But, I also think it is okay if they don’t want to.

Lastly, given the general public’s lack of tolerance for crying babies, I’m guessing many mothers nurse in public exactly to avoid the judgemental looks when their baby starts to fuss too loudly. Let’s just not even talk about the idea that nursing mothers should go to the bathroom to nurse, okay?

Recommended Reading:

For a laugh: “How to Breastfeed Appropriately” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bunmi-laditan/how-to-breastfeed-appropriately_b_5530806.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

For serious: “How Breastfeeding Benefits You and Your Baby” http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-breastfeeding-benefits-you-and-your-baby_8910.bc

Crafts and Contraception

First world problems.

I decided to start with an easy topic. Just Kidding! In light of the SCOTUS decision I decided to start with contraception, and religious freedom, which obviously are hard topics.

Contraception

I’ve been on birth control since I was 14. It started out as therapeutic for endometriosis, which was causing debilitating PMS. If I hadn’t had access to hormonal birth control as a teenager, I would have missed a lot more school. After I got married, it had the added benefit (IMO) of preventing pregnancy until Ryan and I were ready to start a family.

Now that we have Henry, I have a copper IUD. I chose this because it is a non-hormonal method, so I could still breastfeed Henry, while being protected from pregnancy as much as possible right after he was born. Henry was sort-of-planned, but the unfortunate truth is that if we were to have another child right now, we would be in very bad shape financially, since I am still a student. So for me, contraception has been a blessing.

From Wikipedia:

“The copper IUDs contain no hormones, but the copper ions in the cervical mucus are toxic to sperm. They also cause the uterus and fallopian tubes to produce a fluid that contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins, a combination that is also toxic to sperm.[35] The very high effectiveness of copper-releasing IUDs as emergency contraceptives implies they may also act by preventing implantation of the blastocyst.[37][38] In non-emergency use, prevention of implantation is at most an exceptional method of action, not a typical mechanism of action.[17]”

Now, I can see where those who believe life begins at conception would take issue with the exceptional method of action at work here - namely preventing implantation. However I do not share that belief, and I feel no guilt about using an IUD. Lost embryos are just a part of the reproductive process in humans. From UCSF Medical Center, "Conception: How it Works"

"In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses."

Just adding a little levity, folks.

Religious Freedom

We all know what happened yestetday. SCOTUS ruled in a 5-4 decision that closely held corporations are eligible for an exemption from the contraception coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act if they/their owners have a sincerely held religious belief against the use of contraception.

I’ve tried to educate myself about what events led to this case even being a thing. The opinion and dissent lay it all out: The ACA says that employers have to provide health insurance to full time employees. Okay. That means nothing if we don’t define what “health insurance” is. Otherwise your boss could hand you a band-aid labelled “health insurance.” So, the ACA defines health insurance. One facet of that definition, which was added as an amendment, is preventative health services for women. It is specified in the ACA that the Department of Health and Human Services will determine what qualifies as “preventative health services for women.” After the bill was passed, HHS determined a list of 20 contraceptives, including 2 emergency contraceptive pills, and 2 IUDs, that qualified. At the same time this amendment was proposed, so was an additional amendment allowing for-profit companies held by religious owners to opt-out of this requirement using the same mechanism in place for religious employers like churches. This amendment did not pass.

Here is the link to the opinion and dissent if you want to read the whole thing and educate yourself about more of the details: http://www.scribd.com/doc/231968582/Burwell-v-Hobby-Lobby

Having read both the opinion and the dissent, here are my thoughts:

1. If the decision turns out the be as narrow in practice as it is claimed in the opinion, I will be relieved. Basically, the opinion states that this type of religious exemption will only be granted to contraception coverage in particular, not to things like vaccinations or blood transfusions (presumably because the government’s interest in stopping the spread of infectious disease is more substantial than the burden on religious employers). It also states that the HHS will be able to set up a system for employees of companies like Hobby Lobby to obtain coverage directly from the insurer with no cost-sharing to the employer (a system they currently have for religious employers like churches). As long as both of these predictions pan out, I can live with it. My fear is that this decision will bring on a wave of new cases (which admittedly may be decided differently) challenging the mandate to cover other services, or that the mechanism for employees to obtain contraception coverage directly from the insurance company will not come to fruition, leaving many women without access to emergency contraception and IUDs as an option (IUDs + insertion are expensive without insurance).

1b. It is also worth mentioning that the other “less restrictive alternative” proposed in the opinion is that the government itself provide the free contraceptives to employees of Hobby Lobby - so SCOTUS would be okay with taxpayers with sincerely held religious beliefs funding IUDs, just not corporations. Got it.

2. All that being said, I still disagree with the decision. I do not feel an adequate explanation was given in the opinion as to why this case does not set precedent for other types of exemptions. Clear examples were given in the arguments of other sincerely held religious beliefs that are in conflict with providing health care. For example, Scientologists do not believe in any sort of medicines for depression or anxiety, and there are several groups that do not believe in vaccinations. Is it simply because those beliefs are more fringe? The court is not supposed to hold an opinion on the validity or sincerity of the belief in question, only on whether it is substantially being burdened. Is it because “lady health care” is less important than mental health and infectious disease control? I suspect this is the real reason. Boo.

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."  

~ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Conclusion

I am glad we have religious freedom in this country. It seems, however, we have a hard time agreeing about what exactly religious freedom means. We need to remember that religious freedom doesn’t just mean “freedom to be a Christian.” It applies equally to those of all faiths, and no faith at all.

For example, two SCOTUS decisions, in 1962 and 63, established that it was unlawful to lead prayer or have corporate readings of the Bible in public school. Many will say this was a bad thing, and act as though it has been made illegal to pray in school. On the contrary. Students may pray in school, but teachers and administrators may not force any student to pray. Imagine if your child had a teacher that was not from the same religious background as you, perhaps a buddhist history teacher. Would you want them leading your Christian child in Zen meditation every morning in homeroom?

Anyways, those of you who know me well know I love crafts. However, I will be putting my money where my mouth is and going to Michael’s from now on.

Theology 101

Let me start by saying that I know there are a lot of blogs out there. I am not intending this blog for a wide audience or launching my career as a blogger or anything. It is more of a catharsis, and I am hoping people I actually know in real life will read it, but not really hoping for any audience beyond that. And, by design, it has a limited run.

It is time I came out of the closet about my beliefs. I’ve sat silent in church, I’ve left church. I’ve tried other churches. I’ve come back to church. No more sitting silent.

I’d like to start with a post that is foundational to all the other topics I’ll talk about: fundamentals of theology. What do I believe about God? Because, of course, what I believe about God motivates what I believe about everything else.

So, what do I believe? More specifically, what do I believe about the “big ideas” of Christianity? For the record, I am not saying you should also believe these things. I am telling you what I believe, because I think it is important for people to be aware of the diversity of thought present in Christianity.

1. I believe in God.

I believe he exists, that he “created” us in some sense of the word, and that he loves us. An important component of this belief is the fact that I do not know it to be true. That’s right, I view my doubt as a component of my belief. Knowing something factual - for example, the Pythagorean Theorem - is not the same thing as having faith in something that you feel to be true in your heart, even if your head is not sure. So, I believe God exists, I have faith that he loves us, and that is an active choice I am making. My constant prayer is “I believe, forgive Thou my unbelief.”

2. I believe the Bible contains a record of certain people’s experience of the divine. I do not believe it was dictated by God and is infallible in every historical detail. For example - I don’t believe in 7-day creation. But, I do believe there are true things to be gleaned from the creation story. The Bible tells us something about God because it was written down by people who had experienced Him.

3. I believe God wants to redeem us for the here-and-now. I don’t know what comes after death, but I firmly believe that the teachings of Christ are relevant throughout our earthly life. As for the afterlife, I do not believe anyone will be permanently consigned to Hell. Beyond that, my faith that God is benevolent means that I have faith in whatever he has in store after life, even if I have no idea of what it is.

Now, I think of myself as a Christian. I’m sure there are some who would say that I am not, based on what I have just said. Regardless, I wanted to set the record straight on what I believe, call it what you will. I haven’t been that vocal about my beliefs, especially in certain circles. I am not a religious scholar. If you are wanting more details about any of these ideas, I refer you to the following books as a starting place:

1. Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, Marcus Borg

This book ruined my life, ya’ll. I grew up in the church, and I loved it. All of my friends were there. We had lots of fun, and I was completely on-board with traditional Christianity, True Love Waits, all that. This book came along at a time in my life when all of that was starting to unravel, and just kept on pulling the strings even harder. It was a starting place (thankfully, not an ending place), it propelled me on towards further study and reflection about faith.

“Myth is stories about the way things never were, but always are.”

― Marcus J. Borg

2. If Grace is True, Phillip Yancey

This is one of the books that started putting the pieces back together. It was still hard to read, given my upbringing, but it helped. I didn’t fit in at church anymore, but I felt more comfortable with that.

“Grace is the most perplexing, powerful force in the universe, and, I believe, the only hope for our twisted, violent planet.”

― Philip Yancey

3. A Generous Orthodoxy

I gave a report about this book in our college-age Wednesday night Bible study (back when I was college-age). The basic idea is this: People/denominations tend to have a specific belief they emphasize above all others, and they tend to assume that other Christians, even outside their denomination, share that belief and would agree with its primacy. However, this turns out not to be the case. McLaren talks about what the “central” beliefs of many denominations can tell us about Christianity as a whole.

“We must never underestimate our power to be wrong when talking about God, when thinking about God, when imagining God, whether in prose or in poetry. A generous orthodoxy, in contrast to the tense, narrow, or controlling orthodoxies of so much of Christian history, doesn't take itself too seriously. It is humble. It doesn't claim too much. It admits it walks with a limp.”

― Brian D. McLaren

Anyways, if you haven’t written me off after reading all this, keep tuning in for thoughts on more specific issues.