Blogaround

1. 周杰倫 Jay Chou【最偉大的作品 Greatest Works of Art】Official MV (posted July 6) New music video from Jay Chou (in Mandarin Chinese).

2. When concordance-ism eats itself (posted July 14) "And that was not allowed. Pearson came to reject a core evangelical doctrine based on his best attempt to apply our core evangelical methodology and that got him kicked out of his Pentecostal associations and banished into the outer darkness with all the other people who don’t believe in banishments into the outer darkness."

3. Immoderate (posted July 14) Here's a fun little post about how badly-designed the comment moderation filter on Patheos is. "It’s always, on some level, funny when you have to pause and think before realizing that the prudes always turn out to be much dirtier-minded than the rest of us."

4. Webb telescope shows off Jupiter in new image (posted July 18) Everything about this telescope is amazing.

5. Speaking of suicide: How institutions harm people they were made to help [content note: abuse in the medical system, discussion of suicide]

6. What does fasting tell us about the state of scientific literacy? (posted July 18) "But how was I to talk responsibly about this benefit, this personal success story, with so little academic research to back it up?"

7. The Hypocrisy of White Asexuality (posted May 27) "When you’re in a community as white-and-North-American as the asexual one, I think it’s only fair to point out that it’s sauce for the goose to expect that we devote at least a little of our hyperanalytic navel-gazing powers to reckoning with racial identity if we’re going to expect people to sit through our overly-complicated vocabulary lesson."

8. THE Domino Sudoku (posted July 11) This is a cool little puzzle. (35-minute sudoku solve video.)

Blogaround

Grey cat laying on a sweater, with a little red heart toy. Image source.

1. 'Pillar of the community' deported from US after 39 years to a land he barely knows (posted February 9) [content note: deportation]

2. Study: “Bad Girls” More Likely to Say “No” to Sex (posted February 1) "Women with sexual agency were much more likely to say “no” instead of going along with an undesired activity just to please their partner. Women who didn’t prioritize their own pleasure, and who didn’t see themselves as sexual beings, were more likely to just do what they were asked to do regardless of whether they really wanted to, leading to regret."

3. The Unintended Consequences of a Spiritual Discipline (posted 2017) "The easy examples of a Lenten fast as giving up chocolate or candy or sugar or carbs mirror the disordered rules of restrictive eating."

4. Escaping gay conversion therapy in Kenya (posted February 7)

Honest Lent: Introduction

Artwork showing someone getting ashes on their forehead. Image source.

Last December I did a series called Honest Advent, and I liked it so much that I'm going to do the same thing for Lent. The basic idea is that a few times per week, I'll read a bible passage and then blog about my opinions on it. No pressure to agree with it, no pressure to understand every part or answer all the questions that come up, no pressure to do it every single day.

For real, no pressure. Ash Wednesday was 3 days ago and I totally did not see it coming, not til I got home from work that evening and saw people talking about it on twitter. So the first 3 days of Lent I didn't do ANYTHING Lent-y, and guess what, I do not feel one bit bad about that. And for "Honest Lent," I'm [most likely] not going to read the bible every day. I'm going to do it only when I want to. I don't even see that as an ideal, as if it's obviously better to read the bible every day during Lent than to read the bible on some days. No, the ideal amount to read the bible is the amount I want to, however much I feel like doing it over the next month.

I'm making such a big deal about this "I'm not doing it every day and I don't feel bad about that" because in the evangelical culture I come from, everyone knew that the most godly Christians need to take time every day and read the bible. In college, I used to wake up early and spend 40 minutes to an hour every day reading the bible, praying, and journaling. And in that culture, people are required to act guilty if they don't live up to that standard; they "confess" that they "struggle" and aren't "making God a priority." They are socially required to talk about how they're such bad Christians for not reading the bible enough.

But I don't believe that anymore. Nowadays, I very rarely read the bible, and I don't feel one bit bad about that. (And maybe if you want me to feel bad, you need to ask yourself some hard questions about why you follow a religion which doesn't value mental health and would rather people have depression than not read the bible.) The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath.

ANYWAY. So. Here's the bible reading plan I chose (link is a pdf). So the first one is Luke 4:1-13. Go read it and we'll talk about it.

Here are the things I noticed:

1. Jesus ate nothing for 40 days? Really? Is that possible? All right, I googled and found some information about hunger strikes, and it seems like generally people can survive 30-40 days with no food, but not too much beyond that. And only if they're still drinking water. You really need water.

All right so it's possible, but is this a good idea? It's supposed to be super-spiritual, but ... why? This could have very bad long-term effects on a person's health.

And hey, can we talk about fasting a little bit? Growing up evangelical, I never heard about anyone I knew who was fasting. I guess there are some types of Christianity that are more into it? My church was not. Then when I was in a Christian group in college, I heard people talking about fasting- as in, an actual real-life thing that they did- and I did it a few times. (There were even times that a group of us decided to all fast on the same day.) But nobody ever taught me how exactly to do it. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to drink water or not. (After the first time fasting, I found out that people said you should still drink water- but how could I have known that? My body told me I needed to eat, and I was ignoring that need, so how could I have known that my body's need to drink water was a VERY IMPORTANT thing that could be medically dangerous to ignore?)

There was even one time when I was praying at night, and suddenly I knew that God was telling me to fast the next day. So I did. As I recall, nothing out of the ordinary happened that day- nothing to explain why "God" had "told me" to fast that particular day. But that's the relationship I had with God back then- I didn't have the right to make my own decisions, he could order me to do anything, and I would have to do it even if it made no sense. Yeah, I'm glad I'm not in that relationship anymore.

It's a really bizarre concept- denying a very real, urgent physical need because apparently that's what God wants you to do. A really dangerous concept, in my opinion.

(Readers: I'd be interested in hearing your experiences with fasting/ whether you were taught anything about fasting in church.)

[content note for the next paragraph: gun violence]

2. Satan says, "If you are the Son of God..." Now that's interesting because evangelicals like to tell a lot of stories where someone "stood up for God" by doing just what a bad person told them they should do if they are true followers of God. Probably the most common example of this trope is the shooter who asks his victims "Do you believe in God?" and presumably would choose not to kill them if they answered "no." The thing that has always bothered me about these stories that the bad guy defines what devotion to God looks like in that situation, and then the hero acts according to the bad guy's definition. Like, let's be real, if somebody's trying to kill you, you don't have to stand around and answer their questions honestly- you do whatever the hell you can to get out of there. (Even lying is okay.)

So when satan says, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread," shouldn't Jesus "stand up for God" by, you know, telling the stones to become bread? Otherwise, isn't he denying that he's the Son of God? NO. Because satan doesn't get to make the rules. Just because satan claims that the Son of God would do this or that doesn't mean it's true. He's just making it up. Don't play by his rules.

3. Every time Jesus answers, he quotes a bible verse. Now, when I learned about this story in Sunday school as a little kid, the teachers made a big deal about "this is why it's really really important to study the bible, so you'll know what to say when you face temptation." But I don't see it that way anymore. Because that's almost like "you have to have a bible verse backing you up when you refuse to do something- 'I don't want to' isn't a good enough reason." Which totally flies in the face of the entire concept of consent.

I believed that I didn't have the right to make my own choices based on my own desires. Instead, I had to figure out what was the "right" thing to do and what was the "wrong" thing to do. That's why we were supposed to study the bible so much- so that we would be really sure about the "right" things and the "wrong" things.

In this way of thinking, when satan tells Jesus "tell these stones to become bread," Jesus would have to then figure out if telling the stones to become bread was a sin or not, in some absolute sense. If it is a sin, he should refuse to do it. If he feels like it's a bad idea, he doesn't want to, he's not comfortable with it, but he can't pinpoint the exact reason why and back it up with a "logical"* argument, then it's much more difficult for him to refuse. He can try to give some polite excuses, but if satan keeps pushing, well, Jesus feels he doesn't actually have a "good reason" and he'll give in.

(*I put "logical" in scare quotes because I very much believe that "I am uncomfortable with this" IS a perfectly logical and valid reason, even though it is purely based in emotion. People often talk as if a thing can only be "logical" if it's completely unrelated to emotion, but I disagree with that.)

No. When you make personal decisions that don't harm anyone else, you're not required to present your reasons to a jury of your peers and wait for their approval. No. "I want to do this" and "I don't want to do this" are good enough reasons. Period.

Purity-culture girls and ex-purity-culture girls seem to have an especially hard time with this. They often feel that they need to say yes if a good Christian guy asks them on a date- they need to "give him a chance" even if they're not interested. They can only say no if they can frame their refusal as "God told me" rather than "I don't want to." And when we're no longer in purity culture, we don't know how to make decisions based on our own desires- we have no experience in that, nobody ever taught us how. For example, maybe your partner wants to come to your home, but you're not comfortable with that, but you can't really explain why. All you can think is "well I don't believe it's a sin anymore, so... I guess I have to say yes?" It's very difficult to make that transition from asking "Is this right or wrong?" to asking "What do I want?"

4. "The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world." Wait, really? "In an instant"? How have I never noticed that phrase? (I guess I generally read Matthew's version, which doesn't say "in an instant.") Wtf? Where are you going to go where you can see all the kingdoms of the world? Even if the writer thought the earth was flat (...did they?), how high would you even have to be to see them all? Did they believe there actually was a mountain that high? How long would it take Jesus and satan to hike up there? (Are they old buddies who go on mountain-climbing trips together?) And if your field of view was wide enough to include "all the kingdoms", wouldn't they be so far away that you couldn't really see any details? Like, they wouldn't look very tempting from that distance, right?

Or perhaps satan did a miracle and somehow showed Jesus "all the kingdoms" without any mountain-climbing involved? (Or maybe he showed a powerpoint? Or a flipchart? Flannelgraph? Or maybe this entire thing happened in a dream? A vision? Or Jesus was hallucinating because he was starving?)

I'm suddenly realizing this story isn't that realistic and maybe, maybe maybe maybe... should not be taken literally.

Hmm.

Well this gets into the question of what I believe about what the bible actually is, and honestly I don't have a good answer for that. I guess my position is that I think the stories about Jesus literally happened- but wow, the devil "showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world"? Really? I don't think so.

5. I just realized that throughout this entire blog post, I've been using the name "satan", but the passage itself only says "the devil." In the Christian culture I come from, there's an assumption that those are 100% interchangeable, but now I'm wondering if maybe the writers of the bible didn't understand them that way. Hmm. I should probably do more research on that.

6. The devil quotes Scripture too. People say that in church- "The devil quotes Scripture too." They meant it's not enough to read the bible- you have to know the "correct" interpretation too. There were frequent warnings about people who "twist Scripture." But now that all my beliefs have changed, I find that the things I believe now are the things that those supposed "false teachers" who "twist Scripture" believe. So the whole "twisting Scripture" thing is really a way to say "my interpretation is OBVIOUSLY the correct interpretation, and anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong."

Let me give you an example. I no longer believe it's a sin to have unmarried sex. So, good evangelicals are all like "the bible is clear, premarital sex is a sin"- but it's actually not "clear" at all. Over and over and over, the bible says that "sexual immorality" is a sin. But there's nothing immoral about consenting adults choosing to have sex and not hurting anybody. Yes, I believe "sexual immorality" is a sin (well, I believe any kind of immorality is a sin...) but it's totally possible to have unmarried sex without being immoral about it.

Clearly, I am "twisting Scripture."

At it's core, the "twisting Scripture" accusation is "well, you're wrong, because OBVIOUSLY that's not what they meant." That's literally all it is. Supposedly there's one "obvious", "clear" interpretation of the bible, and everyone knows it, but then some people try to "twist Scripture" to make it say things it OBVIOUSLY doesn't say.

So when Christians read this passage in Luke 4 with the mindset of "satan is twisting Scripture," ehhh no I don't like that. The reason Jesus shouldn't jump off the highest point of the temple is because THAT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA. Not because "that's not what the author of Psalm 91 really meant."

All right that's all I have to say about this passage. Readers, what are your thoughts? And are you doing anything special for Lent?

Jesus' Guide to Getting Rewards for Your Good Deeds

In Matthew 6:1-18, Jesus explains how to give, pray, and fast in a way that gets you the best reward.

He does what now?

Image source.

I'm serious. In each of the 3 sections of this passage, Jesus first says how NOT to do your good deeds: Don't do it to show off to everyone, because then that's the only reward you'll get. Instead, do it so only God can see, and God will reward you. He quite explicitly says this in verse 1.

His emphasis on the "reward" was very surprising to me. We'll talk about that in a minute, but first let's go through this passage one step at a time:

Giving

Don't announce it with trumpets. Umm, was this actually a thing? Given all the other hyperbole we've seen in the sermon on the mount, I'm going to assume people weren't literally blowing trumpets and proclaiming "HEY LOOK EVERYBODY, I'm giving money to this pathetic homeless person! I'm awesome!"

Jesus says instead, "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." Great, this is definitely not to be taken literally, so now we have to figure out what it means...

He's setting up a contrast between "hypocrites" who are just giving away money because they want attention, and people who give quietly. I would say the main difference is motive. More on that later.

Prayer

Similarly, Jesus tells us not to be like "hypocrites" who pray in public just to show off how holy they are. Instead, "go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."

Does this mean that we should never pray in public, never pray with other people, never let people know that we're praying? Dude, Jesus prays in public sometimes. He's definitely not saying "don't ever let anyone hear you pray." Instead, he's saying that prayer must be more about you and God than about enhancing your reputation.

And I love the part about "do not keep on babbling." How many times have you listened to someone pray and it just feels like they're "babbling"? And how many times have you tried to come up with something fancy to say, when praying in front of other people? Totally not necessary. Just tell God what's up. And don't worry about censoring yourself either- whatever you wanna say, God can take it. The psalmists didn't censor themselves. If they felt like God had abandoned them, they straight-up asked him why.

Don't censor yourself. Don't worry about saying the right thing, or making a long fancy prayer. God knows how you feel and God knows what you need, so just be honest- with him and with yourself.

(I'm not going to analyze the Lord's Prayer right now because I like it and I want to dedicate a whole post to it next week. ^_^ )

Fasting

Same thing here. Jesus says don't be like the "hypocrites" who "disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting." That kind of makes me laugh.

Pictured: Disfiguring one's face to show off fasting. Image source.

Instead, he says this: "But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen."

Not obvious to people, but obvious to God. Obvious to God. This verse means a lot to me because of the many times I've made the right choice, done the right thing, but no one seemed to notice, and I wonder if it even mattered- did God even notice?

"... so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father..." It's not just that God has access to the information about you fasting, if he chooses to pay attention. No, it's OBVIOUS to him. There is no possible way for him to miss it.

When you dedicate yourself to God, when you try your best to obey him, but it doesn't seem like anything is happening or anyone noticed, don't be discouraged. God noticed. In fact, it's OBVIOUS to him.

So what is up with the "reward"?

For each of these topics- giving, praying, fasting- Jesus sets up a contrast between people who do their good deeds in front of other people, and those who do it secretly so only God sees. He says the first group receives their reward in the form of admiration from others, and the second group gets a reward from God (which we can assume is BETTER than just getting attention from people).

What's the reward? Is it something we get in heaven, or right away, or over the long-term...? Is it something cheesy like "the satisfaction of knowing you did the right thing"?

So let's speculate. Maybe the "reward" is tangible good things that will happen to you- God will help you get a job, help you not get sick, etc. Maybe the "reward" is that other people will treat you well because they see you're an honest person who really wants to do good and help people, and isn't a jerk about it. Maybe the "reward" is that it builds character. Maybe the "reward" is something you don't get until you die and go to heaven.

Anyone else have ideas? Jesus doesn't tell us what the reward is, so I'm wildly speculating. Join me.

Image source.

But how can we be motivated by a reward? Isn't that selfish?

Not necessarily. Every single thing you do, you do because at some level you want to do it and think it will have a beneficial outcome. Suppose you donate money anonymously. You do it because you want to be a generous person, and you want to help the person on the receiving end. Suppose you procrastinate and waste time on Facebook when you should be doing homework. You do it because in the short term, that's far more fun and interesting than actually doing work.

I'm highly skeptical of any philosophy that says we should do good just because we should do good, and tries to deny any personal benefits- or says that it's somehow evil/deceptive/dishonest to acknowledge that doing the right thing can come with rewards. If you tell me "you shouldn't do it because you want a reward, you should do it just because it's the right thing", I will ask you how you define "the right thing"- and your definition is probably going to hinge on some beneficial outcome. How is that not a reward? I do something because it will have good effects in the world, and I LIKE IT when there are good effects in the world. Technically even that is a "reward."

But at the same time, isn't it a little weird how Jesus mentions the "reward" over and over in this passage, as if that's the ONLY motivator for doing good deeds?

I've also recently heard the idea that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees and their emphasis on laws and external behaviors. Perhaps he's mocking how they seem to be doing everything for a reward, and telling how to get a real reward.

So, can we or can we not let other people see us doing good?

Yes, totally, you can. Jesus is not giving us restrictive new rules; he is addressing the motives behind our actions. Be the kind of person who is motivated by what God thinks of you. Be the kind of person who doesn't complain when no one seems to notice your efforts towards doing good.

If you take this to the extreme and go to great lengths to NEVER let anyone see know that you are praying, giving, or fasting, then you're controlled by other people's opinions just as much as if you were doing it to show off.

And yes, Jesus prayed in public, but I bet he spent far more time praying alone.

Also, maybe I'm crazy, but I think there's something kind of special about doing good deeds in secret, so no one will ever know about it except God. On some level, I think there's some appeal to keeping good secrets like that.

So when you give, be confident that God sees it. When you pray, be confident that God hears and knows what you need. When you fast, be confident that it's obvious to God. And that's far more valuable than any compliments or admiration you'll get from people.

-------------------------

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Previous post: Okay, "turn the other cheek" makes no sense (Matthew 5:31-48)

Next post: Pray with me (Matthew 6:9-13)

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.