Book cover for "Maybe God Is Like That Too" by Jennifer Grant.
In my quest to find good books to teach my kids about Christianity, I came across this one: Maybe God Is Like That Too, by Jennifer Grant. I love this book and I totally recommend it! Here's my review.
---
Basic summary
The book is about a boy who asked his grandma where God is:
"Grandma, does God live in the city?" I ask one morning at breakfast.
"Yes, God is here," she says, "You just need to know where to look."
"Whenever you see love, joy, and peace, God is there," she says, stirring her tea.
"Wherever there's patience, kindness, and goodness, God is there too. When you see faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, that's God's Spirit at work."
Then, as the boy goes about his day, he sees examples of each of these things. And each time, he says, "Maybe God is like that too."
For example, here's the one about love:
At school Grandma hands me my lunch and hugs me close before she says goodbye.
That's what love looks like to me. Maybe God is like that too.
You may have noticed that this list of virtues- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control- are the fruit of the Spirit, from Galatians 5:22-23.
The book concludes by saying that we can't see God, but we can see God's Spirit working when we see these good qualities in people.
---
Most- but not all- of them are about people helping each other
For most of these fruits of the Spirit, the examples in the book are about people doing good things for each other. I love that; I really do believe that is God. (Evangelicals will cringe at this though, because it's just people helping each other, it's not people helping each otherbecause they are motivated by their belief in Jesus. Yes, it's just people whose religious beliefs [or lack thereof] we know nothing about. That's where we see the fruit of the Spirit, in this book.)
But, they're not *all* about the way people treat each other. Look at this one, about joy:
On the swings, I pump so hard I see over the wall into the alley. My friends shout, "Higher! Higher!" as my feet fly way up into the sky.
That's what joy looks like to me. Maybe God is like that too.
This is great! I love this so much! This joy, this happiness, pleasure, this simple uncomplicated enjoyment of life- this is God too. When I was an evangelical, I didn't believe in that- I didn't think happiness or pleasure were good things in and of themselves. I believed that when the bible said joy was a fruit of the Spirit, it meant that when we believe in Jesus, we will naturally feel joy because of it. That Jesus is the only source of "true" joy, and all other happiness should be viewed with suspicion.
But now I believe in something so much bigger than that- I believe that it's just a good and beautiful thing when people thrive and laugh and enjoy their lives. Regardless of whether they believe in God or whatever. (See this post from 2015, I Deserve God's Love.)
And I love how this book has this character just simply enjoying swinging on the swings, and "maybe God is like that too"- not as a means to an end, not as a "we have joy because we believe in God" or "helping others brings joy to all of us"- but that his pleasure is just a good thing, just by itself. I think that's great.
---
God's pronouns
This book doesn't use any pronouns for God. As for the examples of people doing good things for each other, some are men and some are women. And the example for "peace" is a quiet classroom (which presumably has no gender). Maybe God is like all of these people and things.
I love this, I love this so much. I believe God contains the full spectrum of gender. No gender is any more "God" than any other gender. So to not use any pronouns for God, and then give examples of both men and women who are like God- yeah, this is exactly what I want to see in a kids' book. (It would be even better if it had nonbinary people too.)
---
"Maybe"
Why does this book keep saying "Maybe God is like that too"? There's this constant uncertainty, this questioning, this feeling that the boy is kind of making his own observations and speculation about what God is like, rather than having some authority figure saying "here is the right answer."
I think this is great; I always tell my son that different people have different opinions about God, and some people don't believe in God. I want him to think about it on his own and come up with beliefs that make sense to him.
---
This book really is the Christianity I believe in
I was SO EXCITED when I read this book. This is the Christianity I believe in, and I am SO INTO IT. Usually when I read children's Christian books/ bible story books, it's an exercise in uh, cringing and trying to decide if I can tolerate whatever cute little lesson the book tries to turn a bible story into, trying to decide if there's enough good in there that I can salvage something meaningful to talk with my son about.
But this book is different. This book didn't make me feel like "okay, it's not that bad." This book had me so excited, from beginning to end, like "YES! THIS is what I believe!"
So if you're looking for a children's book that shows this kind of Christianity, I very much recommend this one.
Image text: "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. - MLK" Image source.
In my post about the book "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals," I said that while reading the beginning part of the book, I felt surprised at the way it introduced its "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" and then claimed that this line of interpretation does NOT lead to acceptance of same-sex relationships- I was surprised because I've heard queer Christians and allies make an argument along those exact lines. How could the book say such an argument wouldn't work? (Turns out the answer is, the sections in the book on homosexuality are extremely shallow. There's a lot to be said, and the book just doesn't say it.)
In this post, I want to point you to where you can read about the "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" in support of queer acceptance. (Not just related to same-sex relationships, but acceptance of all queer identities.) For the most part, I've learned about this from the Slacktivist (Fred Clark), so I want to post a whole bunch of links from his blog here:
Overview of what it means to read the bible from this perspective:
Come hear the music. Come join the dance. "He heard the music and he wanted to join the party, but those 'scriptural prohibitions' wouldn’t let him. I’ve heard that same frustrated, constrained longing to dance in many other voices over the years."
‘You Don’t Get To Pick And Choose’ "I simply do not agree with those who say that love is not the fulfillment of the law. They’re simply wrong. Paul said they were wrong. Jesus said they were wrong. The entire church in the book of Acts said they were wrong."
‘God Has Shown Me That I Should Not Call Anyone Profane Or Unclean’ "'Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' Peter asks. LGBT Christians have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. To withhold the water for baptizing them, to call them profane or unclean, is wrong — it is disobedient, unloving, hurtful, harmful, unbiblical. It’s a sin."
Selfish Gentiles And ‘Shellfish Objections’: Timothy Dalrymple Vs. The Apostle Peter "Peter says that God sent him a vision telling him to welcome the outsiders that his Bible told him should be shunned as 'unclean.' Dalrymple says, No, God was merely telling him that a narrow portion of dietary Mosaic law was henceforth nonbinding for Christians."
I’m Guessing It’s Named After The Other Philip "'So, OK then,' the man says to Philip. 'I’m a queer black foreigner who works for the government of a Gentile queen. Is there any reason I can’t be baptized?' And Philip baptizes him."
Religious Gatekeepers Would Not Like Philip The Evangelist "Philip knew his Bible. He knew that there were dozens of clobber texts that would have authoritatively answered the eunuch’s question. 'What is to prevent me from being baptized?' But Philip did not recite those clobber texts. He hopped down and got in the water with his new friend."
Circumcision/ it's really rich when gentile Christians try to exclude people:
The Ugly Ingratitude Of The ‘Nashville Statement’ "Here’s the thing though: Paul’s opponents here were not wrong about what the Bible says. They insisted that 'the Bible is clear' in its teaching about circumcision, and it is. (Just ask Zipporah.) This was something that was never, ever optional. Everybody knew this. Everybody had always known this."
Titus Was Not Compelled To Reparative Therapy "The texts on circumcision are not ambiguous and they are too numerous to count. The Bible is eminently clear. It says that people like Titus cannot convert unless they are circumcised and pledge to follow the rules. Paul says no to that. He says people like Titus are his brothers and sisters, his full equals. Paul isn’t just contradicting a handful of obscure clobber-texts, he’s swimming against a powerful main current of scripture."
When Gatekeepers Attack (First-Century Edition) "If the gatekeepers of the circumcision faction and 'the biblical view of everything' had managed to bully Peter and Paul into submission, then Gentiles like myself would be in precisely the same predicament that LGBT Christians are today within evangelicalism."
Those are the links I have where the Slacktivist goes into detail about this argument. But I've also seen plenty of queer Christians and allies say things along similar lines, though not in as much detail. Basically, the idea that Jesus' message was about inclusion, especially among groups which were marginalized and rejected by society, and therefore in our culture that means acceptance of queer people.
I went to the GCN conference in 2017. (GCN is the Gay Christian Network- it later changed its name to Q Christian Fellowship.) And one of the songs we sang there was "Draw the Circle Wide," and, wow, that was really powerful, that was amazing. It was astounding to me to have a song about inclusion and acceptance of people be sung in a Christian setting like it was a worship song. That's... it's hard to even explain how different that is from my experience with worship songs, growing up evangelical. All the worship songs we sing in evangelical land are about how amazing God is and how we love God so much and we will do anything for God. Not really anything about, uh, the importance of treating people right, or anything along those lines at all. In evangelical land, they always say worship is "just about you and God."
My point is, queer Christians tend to believe that one of the most important foundational teachings of Christianity is love and acceptance, especially toward marginalized groups. This is the gospel, this is good news, this is the message Jesus preached, this is what Christians should proclaim to the world. This is, ahem, very DIFFERENT from how I understood the main message of Christianity when I was evangelical. And specifically, this is connected to the idea of a "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" because it's about continuing to expand the circle, continuing to accept more and more groups within society and welcome them into the church as full people.
---
One more note about "inclusion"
I always hear queer people talk about "we should accept everyone"- but actually, we shouldn't accept "everyone." We should not accept abusers, Nazis, etc... If some leader from the NRA shows up at your church, okay you should welcome them but they will need to repent or else they can't fully participate. You gotta "hate the sin, love the sinner" them.
When people talk about "accepting everyone" what they mean is, being accepting of people's differences *when those differences are personal identities/decisions that don't harm other people* (and/or when those differences are related to health/disability issues that require us to give some extra support so that people are able to fully participate). I guess this is assumed to be obvious, and that's why I don't hear people explicitly spelling it out. Personally, though, I feel that this is a step that is frequently missing in people's logical arguments about acceptance of queer identities, so I'm mentioning it here.
And anti-queer Christians often make comparisons that are along these lines- like "well if we accept homosexuality then we have to accept bestiality too" really missing the point that acceptance of queerness is about changing from a "we follow these rules because the bible says" paradigm to a "we should act in ways that support other people so they can live good lives, and not harm anyone" paradigm. As if it's about changing from a "here are the bible's rules" paradigm to a "whateverrrrr, there are no rules" paradigm. But, fair enough, because queer people and allies really do go around saying "we accept everyone" when they don't actually mean that- they mean "we accept that everyone can make their own decisions in their own personal lives about things that do not harm others."
And when I was evangelical and I first heard queer Christians presenting the idea that "sin" should be defined as *things that hurt people* (as Romans 13:9-10 says) rather than just *things the bible says not to do* that was MIND-BLOWING to me. The idea that "sin" could and should be defined that way was not on my radar AT ALL as an evangelical. (I believed that an important component of "faith" was following rules that somehow make sense to God even though they make no sense from a human perspective. Blah. No. Jesus said "by their fruit you will know them." MIND-BLOWING.) So I'm sorta inclined to cut them a little slack if they missed that implicit logical step when they heard people arguing for queer acceptance.
For Christians who accept queer people, a big component is DEFINITELY being able to see with your own eyes/ being able to read scientific research which says that accepting queer people's right to define our own identities and make our own decisions is so GOOD and LIFE-GIVING, while requiring us to repress ourselves is really terrible. I think this plays a huge role, but oddly it's not often mentioned in these arguments about why Christians should accept queer people.
So it's about "the flesh" and "the Spirit." There is a list of "the acts of the flesh" and another list of "the fruit of the Spirit." What's surprising to me is that "the acts of the flesh" are, for the most part, very obviously immoral things. Which isn't at all what I think of when Christians talk about "the flesh."
In my experience in evangelical culture, "the flesh" meant our natural bodies and everything that comes with being an incarnate person in a body- and "the flesh" was evil. Anything our bodies needed or desired was suspect. It was "selfish" to pursue our bodies' needs and desires- it was only okay if it could be justified as obedience to God. For example, it's not okay to say "I want to sleep because I want to sleep." (Because hey, you are being lazy- if you were really devoted to God, you would wake up early and read the bible. How selfish and wrong to put your desire for sleep before God.) It has to be spiritualized, like "God commanded us to rest, God designed us to need sleep, sleep is a way of showing that we trust God and we realize we're not so important that the world can't survive without us for several hours a night."
I believed "God is all I need." And it was a sign of devotion to God to push my body, to sacrifice, to ignore my body's needs. Wake up early instead of sleep. Attend tons of Christian groups and bible studies even though I naturally need more "alone time." Don't buy nice things for myself- that money should be donated to poor people on the other side of the world. Pray and pray and pray when I feel lonely, squash down my romantic attraction.
(Someday I'll write about how purity culture is the reason I've never gotten a massage. Well, also I don't want to because I don't like random people touching me- but yeah, in purity culture, the idea of purposely spending time touching and pleasuring your body is just HORRIFYING.)
In short, I pretended I didn't have a body that had needs. "The flesh" was evil. "The flesh" was a source of temptation. There's this idea in Christianity that the self- the soul- is a totally separate thing from the body. That your body doesn't have anything to do with who you really are. It's just a "temporary vessel."
I don't believe that anymore. I believe I am a body, subject to the laws of biology. (Also there's consciousness, which is a real thing and seems like more than just a biological phenomenon, but I'm not sure exactly.) Eating, sleeping, emotions, pleasure. (Go ahead and put sex on the list if you want, though I wouldn't know about that.) When I get angry, my body feels shaky and I have a really hard time with fine muscle movements. When I get nervous, my stomach feels sick. Emotions aren't just abstract things; they have actual effects I can feel in my body, and noticing those reactions is very important in terms of health. Mental health is an important part of health.
And what's more, your body is REALLY COOL! All these natural processes going on without you even knowing. Really complicated, important science stuff.
So don't "war against the flesh." Pay attention to your body. Your needs matter. Your desires matter. Your health matters.
One more thing I'd like to mention: In this passage, "the flesh" and "the Spirit" are presented as totally separate, binary, like there's nothing in between. When I read passages with "vice lists" like this, my instinctual reaction is to be like "okay, those are all really bad, that's not me, so I'm okay." The writer says, "I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." As if all people can be neatly classified into two groups. As if these things are all so incredibly bad, and therefore the punishment is incredibly bad, there's no spectrum of gradually increasing degress of badness. As if, if you find that you have any of these faults listed here, you're officially the wrong type of person and that's that.
What if, instead, we say immorality is incompatible with the kingdom of God? So to the extent you behave immorally, you will be unable to participate in the kingdom of God- not as an externally-enforced punishment, but just because by definition your immoral behavior creates a situation that is not good and therefore not part of the kingdom of God.
I'm not a fan of this dichotomy between "the flesh" and "the Spirit", as if they are two completely separate, opposite forces at war in our lives. Especially because it leads to the teaching that our bodies are inherently bad, and that it's inherently good and godly to ignore our bodies' needs and desires.
