On Selfishness, Christians Have It Exactly Backwards

Gate agent at an airport. Image source.

I remember one time, when I was little, my family was the airport waiting to board the plane. We were going on vacation. One of the airport employees came and made an announcement: "We are looking for volunteers to give up their seats on this flight."

I was confused. I'd never seen anything like that happen before. It was so strange- in Sunday School every week, we learned lessons about doing the right thing, trusting God, being honest, etc, but I had noticed that reality isn't usually so clear-cut. Usually Nebuchadnezzar doesn't come up to you and say, "Worship this idol or I'll throw you into the furnace." Usually your teacher doesn't say, "Raise your hand if you believe in God."

Usually there aren't only two options, one being clearly correct and godly and the other being sinful and selfish. Usually the question, "Am I in a situation where I should follow the morality lessons I learned in Sunday School?" didn't have a clear answer. But here was an airport employee asking, "Would anyone like to give up their seat for someone else? Anyone here willing to obey Jesus' command to give up something in order to help a stranger, rather than being selfish?" [Not in those words, obviously.]

I didn't want my family to give up our seats. We were going on vacation- how on earth would we get there if we weren't able to get on this plane? And it's an awkward feeling, to believe your desires are clearly selfish and wrong, but you want them so much and you're not willing to do the right thing, so you hope if you just say nothing then the gate agent will quit asking and you can move on with your life and forget about how you failed this test of temptation.

I was a child, and incredibly confused about what was happening- I knew this wasn't my decision to make. I hoped my parents wouldn't volunteer and give up our seats. But... wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do? Isn't that what we learned in Sunday School? You should always give and help others, even when it's a big sacrifice for you- your own rights and desires shouldn't factor in at all. (To even think, "No I can't because that would cause a huge inconvenience for me" is SELFISH and WRONG.)

(And no, they didn't volunteer to give up our seats. And we all went on vacation and had a lovely time.)

But I was very, very confused.

There was another time, when I was a child and a bunch of other children were at my house for a party. One girl threw up on her clothes, and my parents told me to go get one of my shirts so she could borrow it. "But," they said, "give her a shirt you don't really like, so it's not a big deal if she doesn't give it back."

This, of course, was also terribly confusing.

They taught us in Sunday School that we should be generous and always willing to give and help others. And, they said, your heart is actually even more important than the thing you give. If you give something to a person in need, and they seem fine with it but you know that it wasn't your best... well your good deeds are like filthy rags. What good is it, to give away something that you don't even care about? Isn't it better to actually sacrifice, to give something that really mattered to you?

I don't remember what I did- I probably gave her a shirt that I didn't care about, and her dad thanked me so many times. But let's try a thought experiment: Let's imagine that I brought out a shirt that I really liked and wore all the time. What would happen next?

Well first of all, my parents would have said, "No you can't give her this, this is your favorite shirt, what if she doesn't give it back?" and I would have been too embarrassed to make any kind of "but God says we should give our best" argument- it would feel silly to say that out loud, anywhere other than a church. (You see, this was before my totally-sold-out-on-fire-for-God days.) But let's imagine that I did give her a shirt I really liked, and then she didn't give it back. I would feel sad. I would regret giving it to her. I would feel a little angry at her. But of course I wouldn't be allowed to feel those things, according to what I learned at church. Of course a real godly Christian wouldn't feel bad about what it cost them to "love your neighbor as yourself." (That would be selfish.)

It was so weird to be told by my parents, "DON'T give sacrificially." It contradicted everything I had learned in church.

(I'd like to point out, though, that our little thought experiment shows us one reason it's not a good idea to "give sacrificially" too much- what if the recipient of your generosity doesn't seem to appreciate how much you sacrificed for them? You might end up angry or resentful toward them. And that's a pretty bad result when you're trying to help others.)

And another example: Every time you wait in line, you're saying you value yourself getting whatever thing you're waiting in line for more than you value the extra minute everybody behind you is going to have to wait because of you. If you only cared about other people and didn't care about yourself at all, you would let everybody else go in front of you. But of course no one does this. (But you can weasel out of this while still upholding the "always put others first" logic if you argue that you're waiting in line to get something that benefits other people, not just yourself- like maybe you're buying something to be shared by a group of family or friends, or maybe it's something you need in order to be healthy so you're able to work and serve other people. Then you can say the benefits to the people in your group are worth the time cost of everyone behind you. Without factoring yourself in at all.)

And any time someone says, "Let's get there early so we can get good seats," they're putting themself before others. There is a limited number of "good seats" and even though you can't directly see who you displaced, we know that mathematically there MUST BE someone who wasn't able to get the "good seats" they wanted because of you.

Anyway my point is, Christians can talk a big game about giving and being selfless and always putting others first, but none of them actually live that way. No one can live that way, really, though I certainly tried to during my "on fire for Jesus" days. I remember one morning in college, I was on my way to hand in some important papers about registering for a class, when I saw a friend in the hallway moving all her stuff into a different dorm room across the street. And I stopped and I helped her carry all her stuff, even though I knew that I had to hand in those papers and if I got there too late, the office might be closed. I trusted that, because I had done the right thing by helping her, God would make sure the office wasn't closed when I got there. (For those keeping score at home, the office was not closed when I got there, so that worked out well.)

That's what I believed- that if I've spent a lot of time planning something, or I have something I really really like, but I realize that I have an opportunity to help someone else if I abandon those plans or give up that thing, then that's what I have to do. I'm not allowed to refuse for no other reason than "but I want this"- that would be selfish. (If, however, I had a reason along the lines of "but this thing I am doing is related to an evangelistic event" or anything else related to serving God or other people rather than "I want this", then it was okay not to give it up.)

But even then, I didn't "always put others first." No one can live that way. There were always parts of my life that I didn't apply that line of thinking to. But I tried, and it was constant stress- always wondering how I can spend less money on myself so I can donate it, always aware that I have to be able to drop whatever I'm doing at a moment's notice if someone asks for my help for anything, no matter how small. (It is extremely difficult to make any sort of plans if you believe that you will have to suddenly abandon those plans, no matter how much you've already invested, at the whims of random passersby who may possibly benefit from your doing so.) (And if you want to tell me I "took this too literally" you better be prepared to unequivocally denounce the idea of "always put others first." Because this is what "always put others first" would look like when someone truly believes and obeys it to the best of their ability.)

I don't believe that anymore, thank goodness. Now I believe that I matter, my needs matter, my desires matter, my rights matter, my emotions matter. I believe my own happiness is a good thing in and of itself, a perfectly worthwhile goal to aim for. I believe that I deserve good things.

I believe that I should care about myself first- that everyone should always care about themselves first. Sometimes it is good to make sacrifices for other people, but the size of the sacrifice should be constrained by how close your relationship is with that person and how big their need is- it's not "anything I can give up that might maybe benefit somebody, I need to give up, otherwise I'm selfish." No- meet your own needs first, then with your leftover resources you can help others.

That's not what I learned in church. I learned I should "always put others first."

Let's talk about something different now: prayer.

In church we prayed about everything. Any problem we had, we prayed about it. Anything we were worried about, we prayed about it. Someone has a cold? Pray for God to help them get better. Someone has a history test tomorrow? Pray for God to help them do well. Someone is going on vacation? Pray for "safe travels."

Christians pray about job interviews. They pray for God to help them find something they lost. They pray for God to "give them peace" when they feel nervous. They pray for the rain to stop. They pray about where to go to church. They pray about which house to buy. They pray for God to help them understand when they're confused about something the bible says. They pray about finding a parking spot.

But I don't really pray anymore. You know why? Because the idea of asking the Creator of the universe to treat me better than other people disgusts me.

That's what a lot of these prayers are- asking God to treat you better than other people. Other people have been in similar situations, and you're hoping God will help you get a result that's better than what those people got. (When someone has a life-threatening illness and you pray about it, the reason you're so focused on praying is because you know that a huge proportion of people in that situation do NOT have a good outcome. You know that, on the whole, God doesn't help people in that situation. You are praying that God would treat you and your loved ones different.) Or maybe it's a situation where you are in direct competition with others- praying about a sports game, praying to get a good price on something.

When I first moved to Shanghai and started searching for an apartment, I saw a lot of crappy ones that were much more expensive than I wanted. And after that first day of looking, I felt so discouraged that I actually considered praying about it. But then I thought, the prices are, at a macro level, determined by the reality of Shanghai's economy, which is a massive system of millions of landlords, renters, and apartment agents. You can probably find some apartments here or there which are less expensive, which are a better deal than what the average renter is getting. And of course, I hope I can find one like that. I am biased- I hope I can get a good deal, better than what other people get. It makes sense for me to be biased in that way. It does not make sense for God to be biased in that way. I don't want a God like that. That God is disgusting.

So let's recap: Christianity taught me I should put others first, that I should always give up what I want if it can benefit other people, that it's wrong for me to spend a lot of effort on things whose sole purpose is to make myself happy. But at that same time, they taught that we should pray about whatever problems we had, because God cared so much and "prayer works." God, who made every person in the world and theoretically should love them all equally, would treat you special because you prayed.

No. I now believe that I should put myself first- I am biased in favor of myself and people who are close to me, and that's a good thing. Everyone should be biased in favor of themself. But God should not be biased. I don't ask God to do things for me, because I know there are other people whose needs are far greater than mine. God should focus on helping them, not me. And I should focus on helping me, and then helping others second.

I was never allowed to put myself before others, but I believed in a God who would put me before others. And that is MESSED-UP.

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

Next post: Christianity and "Selfishness": Here are the Receipts

Blogaround

A very shy little octopus. Image source.

1. Beijing bans new bikes as sharing schemes cause chaos (posted September 8) Yepppp I'm in Shanghai and within the past year-ish a bunch of these bike-sharing apps have appeared and it's getting out of control, there are tons and tons of these public bikes all over the sidewalks, rows and rows and rows of them in front of subway stations, etc.

2. Missouri Court to Hear Landmark Case on Satanic Temple Abortion (posted September 8) "On May 8, 2015 TST [The Satanic Temple] filed both state and federal lawsuits against the state of Missouri on behalf of Mary Doe, a pregnant woman seeking an abortion. Missouri law requires that all women seeking to lawfully terminate their pregnancy must be given reading material claiming that life begins at conception. They must also endure a 72-hour waiting period between their initial appointment and their actual abortion procedure. TST objects to these restrictions on religious grounds because they violate the organization’s belief in the inviolability of one’s body."

3. LGBT groups denounce 'dangerous' AI that uses your face to guess sexuality (posted September 8) All right I work in AI, specifically computer vision, so I have some opinions about this. First of all, the algorithm in the study correctly guessed "gay" or "straight" 81% of the time for men and 74% for women. That's a really significant result in a scientific sense, but it's not 100%, so it's not like we can use this for anything that really definitely needs to be reliable and has practical effects on actual people's lives. Often when scientific findings are reported in the media, the headline makes it sound like the result is way more absolute and definite than it really is (my favorite example of this was a headline I saw once that said "Facebook knows when you'll break up" which was about a study that showed people posted statuses with words/phrases like "break up" more often in certain months than in others).

Also the study only looked at white people, and only people who identified as gay or straight (not bi, ace, or any other possible orientation). And it used photos from a dating site as its data set- perhaps what it's actually telling us is gay and straight people present themselves differently when specifically looking for a partner on a dating website. Maybe if the study used ID photos or photos from some other context, there would have been a different result. (Seriously, I think it's EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT that these were photos posted with the SPECIFIC INTENTION of finding a romantic partner. Not just any old photos.) More research is needed.

So the result is extremely limited and not anywhere near 100% reliable (but still very interesting and cool to anyone working in AI or computer vision!) so of course it shouldn't be used to actually do actual things to actual people. Of course it wouldn't be scientifically sound to decide someone must be gay, on the basis of this algorithm alone, and then treat them badly because of it. (Or, if you want a laugh, I read another article on this study which mentioned maybe it could be useful for teenagers who are questioning whether they could be gay. LOLOLOLOL as if a computer with 70-80% accuracy knows you better than you know yourself.)

But. Historically, people in power have used "science" as an excuse to oppress certain demographics. It doesn't matter that those of us who actually understand the science can see that it in no way justifies discrimination- all that matters is that someone is claiming that "science" is on their side, and getting away with it. (Exhibit A for "getting away with it": headlines completely misrepresenting the results of the study to make it sound much more absolute and immediately practical than it actually is.) So it's good to be extremely wary of how results like this could be used as an excuse to hurt people who are perceived as gay.

4. Chapters 21-23 - An Atheist Reads Evidence That Demands a Verdict (posted 2013) In this video, Shives discusses a BUNCH of differences between the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. And I'm angry in the way only an ex-evangelical can be: This stuff is so damn interesting and this is the FIRST time I'm hearing about it. I studied and memorized the bible my whole life and I was carefully trained not to notice that Genesis 1 and 2 are so different that probably they have different authors. I knew that the correct apologetics answer is "Genesis 1 and 2 don't contradict each other- chapter 2 is just giving more details about the part in chapter 1 where God created people." I was taught that answer before I even had a chance to think for myself "hey why are there two different creation accounts?"

On that note, does anyone have any recommendations for books about the documentary hypothesis? (The documentary hypothesis is the idea that the Pentateuch is compiled from sources from 4 different authors, which we call J, E, D, and P. Yeah real biblical scholars don't think it was all written by Moses.)

5. The First White President (October 2017 issue) "Indeed, the panic of white slavery lives on in our politics today. Black workers suffer because it was and is our lot. But when white workers suffer, something in nature has gone awry. And so an opioid epidemic among mostly white people is greeted with calls for compassion and treatment, as all epidemics should be, while a crack epidemic among mostly black people is greeted with scorn and mandatory minimums. Sympathetic op‑ed columns and articles are devoted to the plight of working-class whites when their life expectancy plummets to levels that, for blacks, society has simply accepted as normal. White slavery is sin. [N-----] slavery is natural."

6. Hurricane Irma Is So Powerful it Sucked Ocean Water Away in the Bahamas (posted September 10)

7. Coping with Suicidal Thoughts (pdf) [content note: suicide] Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a resource like this before, with extremely practical steps that one can take to stay safe.

8. Were You On This Delta Plane That Flew Into Hurricane Irma? (Updated) (posted September 6) Wowwww.

9. B4NP Podcast Episode 19: “The Bible and Intersex Believers” with Megan DeFranza (posted September 11) Also check out her website: Intersex And Faith.

Have a good week everyone~

White Privilege and the Rich Young Ruler

Lego people trying to push a lego camel through the eye of a lego needle. Image source.

Matthew 19:16-30 is the passage we usually call "The Rich Young Ruler." Go over and read it, and then let's talk about it.

Typically, in the past when I've read this passage, I've gotten stuck on verse 23, where Jesus says, "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven." First of all, when I was a kid and it never occurred to me to think of my family as "rich", I wondered why some hypothetical rich people might have a hard time following God and getting saved. Sunday School teachers told me rich people are more likely to trust their money instead of trusting God. Or they feel like they don't need God, whereas poor people have trouble getting their basic needs met and therefore they have to "rely on God" (and aren't they so lucky, they all must have such good spiritual lives because of that). But, the Sunday School teachers reassured us, some rich people are Christians. It's totally possible.

And then I got into radical Christian missions, and I started to think I was "rich." I learned about poor children in Africa who don't even have clean water, and Christian leaders put a lot of guilt on us- we have so much money compared to them, we need to donate, "give til it hurts", we need to go save them. Then the story of the rich young ruler became something to be scared of- like if I'm rich, does that mean I can't go to heaven? Does that mean I have to give away so much that I end up worried about having enough money for day-to-day needs?

But today I'm going to share a completely different interpretation of this passage. I'm not saying this is the "correct" interpretation or this is what Jesus "really meant." Is there even such a thing as "the correct interpretation"? I have an interpretation here that will hopefully be meaningful to you if you are a feminist, if you care about injustice, if you know that privilege is a real thing, if you think "white guilt" doesn't really help anybody.

First of all, I believe the kingdom of heaven is the world as God intended it to be, where there is freedom and equality and no injustice. We should work to bring the kingdom of heaven to the earth. And anyone who is working toward that vision of equality is supporting the kingdom of heaven- even if they're not Christian and wouldn't use the term "the kingdom of heaven." What matters is what people do, not the language they use to describe it, or their religion.

So when Jesus says it's hard for rich people to enter the kingdom of heaven, he's not talking about the question of "will you go to heaven or hell after you die?" He's talking about participating in the work of bringing the kingdom of heaven to this world. People who are rich and/or privileged are less aware of injustice and have less incentive to get involved in righting the wrongs.

Actually, the "wait, if I'm rich does that mean I might not be able to go to heaven?" interpretation takes this passage and makes it incredibly self-centered. Jesus wants us to help others and bring justice to the world, but we get all stuck in "wait am I good enough or not? I'm one of the good ones, right? #NotAllWhitePeople." Like when we take a conversation about violence and discrimination against people of color in the US and make it about white feelings- we want someone to reassure us that we, personally, are not racist- and that desire overshadows our concern about the actual injustice that's actually happening.

So we shouldn't understand "It's hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven" to mean rich people are the victims of this passage and they're the ones we should focus on. It's not about them. It's just saying that, in a practical sense, people who are privileged aren't likely to be the ones doing activism and bringing about big changes that overturn systems of oppression.

If you're white in the US, you can pretty much go through life completely unaware of the systemic injustice that people of color deal with. Recently on Twitter I saw a photo of a protest sign that said "If Hillary won I'd be at brunch right now." And someone on Twitter was saying, that's a problem- injustice was built into every system in the US long before the 2016 election. People are protesting now, but that doesn't mean that if Clinton was president, everything would be fine and there would be no need to protest. (But that doesn't mean "both candidates were equally bad" or some crap like that.) But if you've never had to actually experience systemic racism, it's easy to believe that all this stuff about racism and white supremacy just started now.

At first when the rich man asks Jesus what to do, Jesus tells him to obey the commandments, and lists a few of the big ones- don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't give false testimony, honor your parents, love your neighbor. The man says he has kept all these laws, but he wants to do more. That's when Jesus tells him to sell his possessions and give to the poor. Similarly, those of us with white privilege may have "kept the commandments"- we never explicitly made a choice to do something racist. We never said the N word. We never went to a KKK rally. We never believed black people are biologically inferior. But that's not really enough. We still have privilege, and that separates us from the actual reality of injustice in our world, just like the rich man's money separated him from participation in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus tells him to sell his possessions- and that means for those of us with privilege, in order to really do the work of bringing justice to this world, we'll have to take actions that are risky and costly. (I don't think we have to sell all our possessions- I don't see how it would help anyone if I put myself in a state of constant anxiety over not having enough money.)

And I strongly believe we need to count the cost. Don't just start doing stuff because "it's the right thing to do." Don't just jump in and hope God will take care of you, like the radical Christian missions teachers told us to do. Figure out what cost you realistically are willing to pay. And I don't think there's one "right answer" about that; again, I'm very wary of radical Christian missions ideology which says as long as anyone else is in need, it would be wrong for you to ever buy anything nice for yourself. But those of us with privilege do have a responsibility to use it to help advocate for justice. Privilege isn't something we should feel bad about; mostly it's something we're born with. It's not bad to have privilege (there's no reason to feel bad for being white), but it does mean we have a responsibility.

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for people who are unaffected by systemic injustice to get involved with fighting against that injustice. But this passage isn't about condemning them to hell for that, or feeling bad for rich people- that puts the focus in the wrong place, just like when we white people are more upset over being called racist than about the actual reality of racism.

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

One more thing: OBVIOUSLY the characters in this bible story were NOT white, American, or English-speaking.

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

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

Previous post: Why Does the Kingdom of Heaven Belong to Children? (Matthew 19:13-15)

Next post: The Parable of the Living Wage (Matthew 20:1-16)

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.

4 Biblical Definitions We Need to Defend in the Culture Wars

Red dragon with seven heads. Image source.

Longtime readers may know that I find it endlessly entertaining the way people talk about "the biblical definition of marriage" as if such a thing exists. (Like, do they realize the bible is not a dictionary?) On that note, I'd like to call your attention to these other biblical definitions that Christians really need to defend in the face of an increasingly secular culture.

1. Dragons

Revelation 12:3 gives us the biblical definition of dragons: "an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads." However, when I did a google image search for "dragon", not a single result matched this description. (I was able to get biblically-accurate dragons by searching "dragon revelation" though.) In our current society, most people are ignorant about what the bible says about dragons, and the images we see in popular movies only serve to reinforce this ignorance.

Bible-believing Christians need to boycott all movies, books, and other forms of media which include depictions of dragons that directly contradict the bible's clear teaching.

2. Racing

In 1 Corinthians 9:24, we find the biblical definiton of racing: "Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize?" However, in our godless society, the bible's clear teaching on racing has been all but abandoned. It is incredibly rare to find a race where only one runner is awarded a prize. In the Olympics, for example, medals are awarded to the first, second, and third fastest participants- a blatant attack on the authority of Scripture.

Furthermore, even though the bible only speaks of races with runners, our culture has perverted the idea of racing so much that now there are so-called "races" which involve other types of transportation. We have lost sight of the biblical definition of racing and now have races for cars, bikes, horses, swimmers- where does this slippery slope end? If we don't take a stand for the biblical definition of racing, our culture will surely descend into moral chaos.

3. Doctors

Matthew 9:12 is perfectly clear: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." Yet many modern Christians have abandoned the authority of Scripture, and they go for annual check-ups even though they are not sick. They claim that preventative care is a new concept that Jesus didn't say anything about. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here in Matthew 9:12, we read Jesus' own words- the biblical definition of doctors.

Furthermore, there are many Christians who cite the health benefits of annual check-ups in order to justify their sin. They talk about serious health problems that are much easier to treat if detected early. They elevate their own experience and human emotions above God's word. God is the one who created our bodies. God knows what's best for us. The bible is clear: Only sick people should be making doctor's appointments.

4. Dishwashing

Jesus' teaching in Matthew 23:25-26 is very clear: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean." But our secular culture has all but abandoned this principle. Instead of trusting Jesus' word when he said it is only necessary to wash the inside of a dish, people use soap and water to wash BOTH the inside AND outside. This behavior is widely practiced even by those who claim to be Christians!

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

As our culture becomes more and more immoral and loses sight of God's word, we need to be the ones to take a stand. Our future is at stake. Our children's future is at stake.

Blogaround

Four golden retrievers. Image source.

1. Break the Cycle: Spiritual Abuse and the Conversion of Children (posted September 1) "We discover that Jimmy has never asked Jesus into his heart. My heart pounding, I convince Jimmy to let me lead him through the sinner’s prayer. I feel both very uncomfortable and somehow accomplished. By this time, most nights I don’t lie awake crying, repeating the sinner’s prayer over and over in a state of severe anxiety."

2. Florida Demands Parents Call Their Kids "Limited" or Lose Health Care (posted August 28) "We should never have had to justify services by listening to others denigrate our son."

3. The ugly ingratitude of the ‘Nashville Statement’ (posted August 31) "But Paul wasn’t having it. He insisted it was wrong to “trouble” and “unsettle” these uncircumcised believers by telling them that they would have to first become something else in order to follow Jesus."

4. The Adorkable Misogyny of The Big Bang Theory (posted August 31) Well full disclosure, I really like "The Big Bang Theory," but this video is absolutely right. The sexism in this show is very bad and as a nerd girl I really hate it. In the first few seasons of "The Big Bang Theory," Raj "can't talk to girls"- which meant he literally was unable to speak in the presence of a woman- and this was presented like "oh look how pathetic he is," as if it was something that mostly affected his love life or lack thereof. COME ON. Women are not just potential romantic partners. If you can't even speak to half the people you encounter, that's just unacceptable at school, at work, or in any other setting where people talk to each other. (Reminds me of the "Billy Graham rule.") Also I hate all the jokes about how nerds can't get a girlfriend. Like when Sheldon is making his youtube series about flags and brings in his girlfriend to prove to all the doubters in the comment section that she really is real- because a nerd boy having a girlfriend is apparently something unbelievable. Or when Penny is signing autographs at some nerdy convention and the nerd boys who come and ask for her autograph don't believe that Leonard is really her husband, because how could a man like him ever get a woman as hot as her? Both Penny and Leonard have to tell the fans repeatedly that it's true, he really is her husband- and then a giant group of nerd boys gathers around to hear the tale of how on earth that could be possible. (And to learn how they can achieve the same result.) It's disgusting because it says that women and nerds are completely separate and it's unimaginable that they would ever have anything in common. It erases the existence of nerd girls. (And I hate how in the first few seasons of "The Big Bang Theory", none of the main characters were nerd girls.)

5. Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like (posted August 28)

6. And also I started a Patreon a month ago~ so if you've benefited from reading my blog and you're able to support, that would be great! Thanks~~~

I'm Really Really REALLY Glad I Had Sex Before Marriage

Fear, Joy, and Disgust. (From "Inside Out.") Image source.

Hi everyone! I'm very excited to tell you today I have a guest post on Love, Joy, Feminism: I'm Really Really REALLY Glad I Had Sex Before Marriage

Some related posts you may also like:

For This Asexual, Purity Culture Was All About Fear
Worth the Wait?
He's Not "My Future Husband"
I Know We'll Have a Good Marriage, BECAUSE We're Not Pure

"Where's Jesus' Car?"

White Jesus next to a car. Image text: "'For I did not speak of my own accord...' John 12:49" Image source. 

Here's a cute little story I heard in a sermon once:

I was telling my little daughter that Jesus is always with us and lives in our hearts. She said, "He lives with us?" I said yes. Then she looked out the window and asked, "Where's Jesus' car?"

Aww kids are so cute.

But what I didn't realize at the time is how culturally-dependent this story is. I come from a suburban, American background; when I was a little kid, every adult I knew had a car. I assumed that all adults have cars, that it's an essential part of being a responsible, independent, grown-up person. And the child in that little story also believed that. Because it was true of the culture she lived in.

There was one time when I was a college student and traveling by myself in China, and I stayed at a friend's apartment. She was not a student, she was a real adult with a full-time job in the real world. And I was surprised when I discovered she didn't have a car. I didn't say anything about it; I was very polite and I had gotten used to just going along with it when I encountered bizarre cultural habits in China.

It didn't occur to me that I myself was taking public transportation every day and getting around just fine with no car, and there's no reason "real adults with full-time jobs" couldn't do that too. I thought adults are supposed to own cars because that's just part of the definition of "being an adult"- I didn't think about how in some locations it's necessary to have a car and in other locations it's not necessary at all.

And since then, I've found out that this isn't really a "China thing", it's a "big cities" thing. I have friends who live in New York City, and they don't have cars. For many people living in a big city with a lot of traffic and an extensive, reliable system of public transportation, owning a car is way more trouble than it's worth. So they just don't have a car. And they are still real adults who aren't missing some huge essential part of their life.

Also I live in Shanghai now and I don't have a car because traffic is terrible and there's no parking anywhere. I take buses and subways and taxis, and I get around just fine.

So when the little girl asked the question, "Where's Jesus' car?" it revealed a lot about her cultural background. She lives in a culture where all adults have cars. And that's fine, it's not "good" or "bad", but I'm writing about this because a lot of white Americans think their experiences are just "normal" and they don't have a "culture." That's how I thought too, back then. Even though in China I recognized that other people had different experiences than I did, I still subconsciously imagined that my experiences were the "normal" reference point and other people would acknowledge "we are doing this in a way that's different from the normal way, but that's okay because in this setting it makes more sense to do it this way." For example, I imagined that everyone believed "all adults should have a car" and the Chinese people living in big cities would think to themselves "well ideally we are supposed to have a car, but we are doing something different from the normal way because of these reasons why having a car here is impractical." Lol. No. Whatever people grow up with, that's their "normal", and they don't intrinsically have some longing for or understanding of my "normal."

If we wanted to tell a similar story as the "where's Jesus' car" story, but for a Chinese setting, we could have the little girl ask "Where are Jesus' home shoes?" See, in China, if you're in someone's house, then you shouldn't wear your regular shoes that you wear when you go out, and you shouldn't go around barefoot or in socks, you need to wear special shoes which I call "home shoes" in English. "Home shoes" is my own translation; typically Chinese people will translate 拖鞋 [tuō xié] as "slippers" but that's WRONG. "Slippers", at least in the dialect of English I speak, are soft shoes [that you can only wear at home] that are usually worn to keep your feet warm in the winter, some people have them and some people don't, they're seen as more of a personal possession rather than something you offer to guests who visit your home, and they're often cute and feminine-looking. In contrast, most "home shoes" I've seen are rubbery-sandal-type things, which people wear because IT WOULD JUST BE UNTHINKABLE to walk around your own home barefoot (or rather, it's about being clean, Hendrix tells me), and you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS need to provide them for any guest as soon as they walk through your door. (Like, people will clog up your doorway, unwilling to actually enter your home, as they search the doorway area and any of your nearby shelves or closets for home shoes.) I know one American friend who went to stay at his Chinese roommate's home, and the Chinese family thought his flip-flops were his home shoes. Because a lot of home shoes are very similar to flip-flops.

(Ugh but actually the translation is even more complicated than that: Actually, 拖鞋 [tuō xié] does not exactly mean home shoes. 拖鞋 [tuō xié] means any shoes that you just easily slip on. That includes home shoes, and that includes flip-flops that you wear outside. There's not a specific word in Chinese that only includes home shoes and not any others. I just asked Hendrix and he said there's not really an actual word for the belief that "when you're at home, you can't just go around barefoot, you have to wear home shoes." Because it's so normal in China, everyone gets it and you don't need specific words to explain the concept. I had to invent the English term "home shoes" myself, and there's no exact equivalent in Mandarin.)

Anyway, you keep everyone's home shoes by the front door, and then when they come home they change from their regular shoes to their home shoes. In that kind of context, it makes sense that a child might wonder, upon learning that Jesus lives with them, where Jesus' home shoes are.

So my point is, "Where's Jesus' car?" and "Where are Jesus' home shoes?" are both equally based in the culture of the child asking the question. It's not like one is more "normal" and the other is "exotic" and "foreign." For those of us who come from a suburban US background, obviously "Where's Jesus' car?" feels more "normal" and is easily understood- but our suburban US perspective isn't "objective." It's a culture just like anything else is a culture.

All Christians make Jesus into their own image. And that's not necessarily a bad thing- I believe Jesus is always with us and fully understands us, so yes he is fully present in every culture in the world. But don't ever forget that your perspective is not somehow "normal" or "objective." You have a culture that affects the way you see the world and the things you think OBVIOUSLY everyone should have (whether it's a car or home shoes). A Chinese-speaking Jesus who believes that of course people always wear home shoes when they're at home is just as real as the Jesus we pray to in English.

If you make a joke that combines some bible character with some aspect of your modern life, and "haha it's funny because they didn't have facebook back then"- don't forget it's not just about "back then." Even if the disciples lived now, who's to say they would speak English and post pun-filled memes on facebook? That's just one small subculture of people who live in this world right now. (And facebook is blocked in China...) Don't forget that time isn't the only thing separating us from those biblical figures. Don't forget language and culture.

I come from a white, American, English-speaking, suburban cultural background. But God does not.

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

Related: Political Correctness and How I Learned Chinese People Don't "All Look the Same"

They Prayed About It (a post about the #NashvilleStatement)

A bunch of people praying in a prayer circle. Image source.

Last week, the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood published the Nashville Statement, which contains all the typical evangelical talking points about how same-sex marriage is a sin and being transgender isn't really a real thing. (And I'd like to give a special shoutout to Article 10, which says that anyone who disagrees with this anti-queer ideology isn't a real Christian.) It was signed by John Piper, James Dobson, Russell Moore, Al Mohler, Marvin Olasky, Francis Chan, Christopher Yuan, and other big names in evangelicalism.

This anti-queer ideology is unloving, destructive, un-Christlike, evil, and literally deadly. I want to affirm that queer identities and relationships are perfectly valid, and that queer people are in charge of their own personal lives and don't need cis straight allo pastors telling them what to do.

And another thing I want to say: They prayed about it. And it makes me sick.

I used to be evangelical. I know how these things go. When a bunch of Christian leaders have a meeting, they start out the meeting with prayer. And all major decisions need to be prayed about, and you shouldn't go ahead and do it unless you feel like God is saying yes.

In that culture, if somebody tells you they plan to do something, and you think it's a bad idea, you can ask, "Have you prayed about it?" If they haven't prayed about it, that means OF COURSE they shouldn't do it. And they should feel ashamed that their decision-making process didn't involve prayer.

(By the way, here are some of the signers of the Nashville Statement teaching that big decisions need to be guided by prayer: John Piper. J. I. Packer. Wayne Grudem. John MacArthur. And I'm sure we could find more. This is an extremely important belief for Christians of the personal-relationship-with-God persuasion.)

So here's how it happened: A group of nice Christian leaders got together and prayed that God would guide them and help them, and that they would act according to his will (yeah they believe God is a he). And then they wrote this vile abomination that is the Nashville Statement. And discussed it and spent a lot of time making it just exactly right, so it was something they could all agree to. Probably they each prayed in their heads during the meeting too. And they signed the statement, feeling confident that it's what God would want them to do.

Because, you see, when you pray for God's guidance, and you're honest about your motives- sincerely desiring to honor God rather than any sort of "selfish" motive- and surrender the whole decision-making process to God, like "God I will do whatever you say, even if I don't like it, even if it's hard, even if it's unpopular"- if you do all that, and then you have a *feeling* like "yeah, this is the right thing to do," that is from God. That's God "leading" you. (Like, you can't be 100% sure; there's a possibility it's not actually from God, but you gotta "trust God" and go along with it.)

They believe God wants them to do this. To preach this hateful ideology which tells queer children that God hates them.

That's disgusting. I don't know about you, but I have a bit of a gag reflex...

But enough speculating about the writers of the Nashville Statement. Let me tell you about my own experiences. Back when I had a personal relationship with God, I spent TONS of time praying about decisions. Dedicating myself to God constantly, always wanting to be totally open to whatever God wanted me to do. And there were times when I had discussions with people about religion, on facebook or over email, and while writing my replies I would stop and pray and really really carefully consider exactly what I wanted to say- and because of all this prayer and the confident feelings that came with it, I very much believed that I was doing what God wanted me to do.

Sometimes they were discussions about sexuality. And I gave all the standard hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner answers. And I was so careful about how I worded it, wanting to be loving and kind, covering everything in prayer. And I wrote what God led me to write.

(When people were upset about what I said, because it was the standard hateful evangelical ideology that says I'm in charge of telling gay people what they are or aren't allowed to do in their own personal lives, I was sure it wasn't my fault. I had prayed about it so much; surely what I said was good, and the people who were angry about it were in the wrong.)

God told me to write those things. God told me I was being good and loving. And then I found out how incredibly evil and destructive those beliefs are.

I ask you this: Can a relationship recover from that?

I made myself totally vulnerable to God, and he used me to hurt queer people (and all other groups of people that don't have the "correct" doctrine). I trusted him; I truly believed that if queer people would only follow those teachings, they would be much happier. But it turns out that was all a lie. So I ended that relationship.

I'm never going to do that again. I'm never going to make myself vulnerable in front of a god. I'm never going to surrender all. I'm never going to lay out all my emotions, desires, and plans for a god to judge. I'm never going to say "not my will but yours be done." I'm never going to worship again. I'm never going to "have faith" and just go along with what a god tells me even if it seems like a bad idea.

I now make decisions based on my own conscience and extensive research into the various options. I don't give God a say. Even the thought of taking a quiet moment to pray and ask for God's direction is triggering for me. Because of what he did. Because of how he took advantage of me.

Everything about the Nashville Statement calls into question the very concept of a "personal relationship with God." Because I've been there, and I've done bad things in the name of God, while extremely confident I was doing a very good thing for a very important mission that might not make "worldly" sense. If prayer and devotion to God can drive someone to do something so hateful, then it is absolutely not okay to give highest priority to prayer and devotion to God while making decisions.

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

Related: My Identity was in Christ

Blogaround

A cat in a box. Image source.

1. What Does It Mean to Say ‘Racism is Sin’? (posted August 21) "This sincere, emphatic insistence on the universality of sinfulness is interesting in light of the claim we’re discussing here. Say, “You’re a sinner, too” to even the most piously devout evangelical and they will wholeheartedly agree. They will almost happily agree — without any trace of offense or indignation."

What does it mean to say ‘racism is sin’? (cont’d.) "We imagine we’re adding a new rule to our ever-growing list of sinful, forbidden deeds — something like “Thou shalt not racism.” OK, then, we think, we’ll try not to do that. And we prepare ourselves for the possibility that at some point we’ll be confronted with a stark, conscious, volitional choice between sin and not-sin, complete with a little devil on one shoulder whispering “Go ahead, commit racism” and a little angel on the other shoulder saying, “No, don’t, just keep on not committing racism.”"

2. How Free Eyeglasses Are Boosting Test Scores in Baltimore (posted August 17)

3. #HoustonFlood Relief Donations Thread (posted August 27) A twitter thread of local Houston charities you can donate to, to help people affected by hurricane Harvey. Please donate if you can! I did~ (For me, I tend to get overwhelmed and feel like the problem is so big I can't do anything, and then I feel like I have to read all the information about all the charities ever and pick the BEST one before I can donate- yeah if you have that tendency too, just do a little bit of reading about charities and then just pick one, don't spend tons and tons of time and then not even make a decision, that doesn't help anybody.)

4. #RainbowManifesto (posted August 30) A response to the Nashville Statement. This is really good.

How About We Don't Call It "My Sinful Nature"

People playing cards. Image source.

Back in college, there was a Christian cross-cultural training I attended in preparation for a mission trip. At this training, we participated in a bunch of activities to simulate situations where we encounter cultural differences, and see how we react and how we feel about it. (This training turned out to be really useful for me- before, I really knew nothing about cultural differences. I couldn't imagine there could be a society where people all did some very basic mundane thing in a completely different way than anything I had heard of, and it's fine and society still functions and people would think I'm the weird one for thinking it was weird. And now, years later, here I am in China.)

One activity was a card game. The training leaders handed out the instructions for the game, and all of us students took a few minutes to read them. It was very simple, everyone plays a card and then the highest card wins, that sort of thing. (And no talking allowed.) So we read the instructions and then played the game in groups of 4.

After we had played one round, we were instructed to switch to a different table, and play with a different set of 4 people. Now this is where it got interesting. According to the instructions, the person who had won the previous trick should be one who plays a card first on the next trick. But for some reason, this other girl, let's call her Lisa, was playing a card. And I tried to tell her, no, that's wrong, it's supposed to be the one who just won the previous trick. We tried to continue playing the game, but it was difficult because over and over, there was disagreement over whose turn it was, and we argued by means of impassioned pointing at each other, because we weren't allowed to talk. (By this point, all of the papers containing the instructions for the game had mysteriously disappeared.) I felt angry at her for acting like the rules didn't matter. I didn't give up- I kept advocating for the correct way of playing. By pointing and waving a lot.

When the game was over, all of us students gathered around to talk about what had happened and how we felt about it. And at this point it was revealed that actually, each table had received a slightly different set of instructions for the game. Yes, as it turns out, Lisa had come from a table which played by the-next-person-to-the-left-leads, rather than the-person-who-won-leads. The purpose of the activity was to see how we would react when we encounter people who do something in a different way than we're used to.

Basically, there were three possible reactions:

1. You can tell other people their way is wrong and try to force them to do it your way. (That's what I did.)
2. You can internalize the idea that your way is wrong, and assimilate and lose your own cultural identity. (Like the people who thought "maybe I'm remembering the rules wrong" and didn't put up any kind of fight over it.)
3. You can recognize that different cultures do things differently and that's okay, and we should all listen to each other and accept each other. (This is the correct answer, if you're wondering.)

I remember I lay awake that night, thinking about how I had failed. I had tried to force Lisa and the other players to do things my way. I was so sure they were wrong; I didn't listen to them or respect their "culture."

That was back when I was so on-fire-for-Jesus; I devoted myself to Jesus so hard, I woke up early every morning to read the bible, I obsessed over doing everything I possibly could to obey him, I constantly fought against my own "sin". And yet somehow, this behavior had slipped through. Somehow, even though I worked hard all day long to follow Jesus, I had sinfully tried to force people to do things my way, not listening to them or respecting their way.

I was a good evangelical, so there was only one way I could explain it: my sinful nature. I believed that, at the deepest core of who I am, I am horribly sinful and that's never going to change. All of this devotion to God was about covering up my true identity, putting on layers and layers of prayer and bible verses and obsessive devotion and repentance. I was training myself to be the kind of person who didn't sin in the ways that my sinful nature would want me to sin. I'd done such a good job that I was able to fool people- and even myself- into thinking I was a pretty good person and didn't have the capacity for such evil things. But the sinful nature would always be there. It would always be who I really am.

What was going to happen, I wondered, when I went on this mission trip and met people who actually did come from a different culture than me? I worked so hard for God, worked so hard doing evangelism and loving people, and I imagined that somehow, at some point in the future, this sinful tendency to force my ideas on people would come out, and all of my hard work would be ruined. Surely it was inevitable, because I have a sinful nature and I'll always be this way, no matter how much I devote myself to Jesus. It'll always be there, somewhere, deep under the surface, and someday it will break out in an ugly way. I wondered if maybe I shouldn't even do mission trips.

(For those of you who are like "no no no, that's not what 'sinful nature' means, you misunderstood it": I challenge you to find a well-known evangelical leader or organization that teaches "after you become a Christian, you will no longer have a sinful nature. You can relax; you don't have to scrutinize every action and thought, worrying that somehow you're going to accidentally commit a huge terrible sin." Yeah, you're not going to find one. So if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall, and all that.)

I had sinned, and I knew I would sin again in the future, because that's just the kind of person I am. No matter how I try to get away from it, no matter how much I read the bible and devote myself to God, I'll always have a sinful nature. It was very discouraging, as you can imagine.

Now how about we try looking at this in a different way, without using the concept of "sin" or "sinful nature." Here's the deal: I'm kind of stubborn. That's just part of my personality. I've always been very focused on right and wrong, and standing up for what I believe is right.

Sometimes this is a bad thing- like when I think my ideas are so much better than everyone else's, and I don't listen to or respect other people's ideas. Or when I'm so focused on following the rules and "standing up for what's right" that I don't realize that people and relationships are sometimes more important than the truth. (I've gotten in arguments while playing board games- somebody did something that breaks the rules [probably because they weren't aware of some tiny nuance of the rules], and I won't let them get away with it, and it becomes a huge thing and other people tell me, "let it go, it's just a game," but in church they told me to stand up for what's right, even if no one else is, so no I won't "let it go." I've since figured out that the purpose of a board game is for everyone to have fun, and that's more important than following the rules. It's better to just let someone believe that they're allowed to move their piece here or there than to spend half an hour yelling at each other about it. This was never explained to me when I was introduced to the concept of games.) My parents have always said I'm "stubborn." I often have very strong opinions on what's "right" and what's "wrong" and I will fight for them- sometimes out of proportion to the importance of the actual "right" or "wrong" in question. (Because how can you attach a price to The Truth? Truth should be defended, regardless of the cost. Right?)

But it can be a good thing too. It means morality is extremely important to me, and I want to do what's right even if it costs me. It means I will stand up for what's right.

So it's part of my personality, this stubbornly-trying-to-force-my-ideas-of-right-and-wrong-on-people thing. That's never going to change, and I need to make sure I remind myself to notice the human cost of insisting that people follow The Rules and The Truth- to remember that sometimes there are things which are more important than The Rules and The Truth.

I'll always have that weakness, but it's okay, everyone has weaknesses and personality flaws. But let's call it a "weakness," okay? Instead of "my sinful nature."

If it's "my sinful nature" that means I can never really be a good person- all my seemingly godly qualities are just me putting on an act. That's "sanctification", the pastors all said, it means God is in the process of making us into perfect sinless people, and we're always improving but we'll never actually get there. It means no matter how hard I work to be devoted to Jesus, I will inevitably hurt him infinitely (because every sin is an infinite offense against a holy God, right?). It means I should always feel bad about myself, and feel bad for the terrible things I do to Jesus.

But if it's a "weakness", a perfectly normal, human flaw, then it's okay. I should be aware of it and try not to treat other people badly because of it, but if I mess up sometimes it's not the end of the world. It's just a small part of my life, not some kind of big dramatic moment where it's revealed that I've been thoroughly evil and sinful all along. It doesn't have any bearing on whether or not I deserve love and happiness, on whether or not I should go to hell.

In the Christianity I was taught, it's not okay to just be a human. In our default state, we sin sometimes, and that means we deserve to go to hell, and we don't deserve anything good ever. And so, according to the "gospel" I learned, I need to constantly put all my energy into serving God and fighting against my "sinful nature"- I need to "take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

The Christian leaders were very adamant that we don't earn our salvation- it's a "free gift" and besides, we suck so much, there's no way we could earn it by doing good deeds. So all this fighting against "my sinful nature" isn't how I get salvation. But. They said if you're truly saved, then you will really really love God, and therefore you will fight with all your strength against anything that could hurt him (ie, any and all little mundane sinful thoughts). So all the "real Christians" will of course fight this battle against their "sinful nature." But remember, even when you do, even when you do it with all your heart, even when your love and obsession for God consumes every part of your life, you still won't be good enough. You'll still mess up and sin sometimes, and hurt God so bad. But God still loves and forgives you, even though there's no logical reason he should, and you should feel lucky he still loves you since you're such a worthless sinful human. (This is what it means when church people say "we are saved by grace through faith, not works." And also when they say "isn't it great that we don't have to do good deeds to earn our salvation- because we could never meet that standard." And "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind.")

But thank God I don't believe that anymore. I believe I am a good person. I have weaknesses and sometimes I don't treat people right- and that's bad, I should work on that- but it's okay, everyone makes mistakes sometimes. I'm basically a good person. And I say that, knowing it's the highest form of heresy. The very foundation of the "gospel" I used to believe and dedicated my life to was "there's no such thing as a good person."