I've seen tons of conservatives on TV taking shots at the Pope, now that he is in the US. Is this the clincher that their "Christianity" is just a tool? -Greg
------------------------
Thanks for writing in, Greg.
I have said, for a long time, that for a large number of politicians, Christianity is a flag that they can wave to get support and talking points without having to be nailed down to actually meaning anything in particular. While any number of them might actually consider themselves to be Christian, their policies are not particularly faith driven, for reasons I have discussed at length elsewhere.
But no, this isn't the clinching proof of that.
A lot of non-believers (yes, even some of my atheists) have difficulty understanding that Christianity is not, and has never been, monolithic. Even when using it as part of an atheist rationale ("Whose version of the Bible is right?") the truth behind that talking point often gets lost... that there are many, many versions of Christianity out there, and there has never been a time IN HISTORY when every member of the faith was on the same page.
(To me, as it happens, this is one of the most compelling arguments against the "let's invent a faith for X reason" conspiracy theories... if Christianity was invented as a part of a conspiracy, they would have gotten their story straight, first.)
So what does this have to do with Conservatives and the Pope? Well, first, despite what some Catholics might tell you, the Pope does not represent Christianity as a whole, and so it is entirely possible to oppose him and still be Christian. And speaking of opposition:
There are traditions within American Protestantism that are nearly defined by opposing the Pope, to the point of portraying anything even remotely Catholic as satanic and evil, viewing the Catholic Church as the great evil that seeks to control the world for Satan while we "good" Christians carry on the fight, good here generally meaning "white middle class Protestants" and all those lesser people we can save from the evils of Papery.
It even took depressingly familiar forms. Nearly any modern day stigma you can think of against Muslims at one point had its Catholic counterpart, with Catholics perceived as inherently unAmerican immigrants who came to take our jobs and who would obey the Pope, rather than our laws. That last point was held up NATIONALLY as recently as the 1960's, with people worried if John F. Kennedy, if elected, would follow the will of the American People or the Pope.
Nothing new under the sun, it seems.
It is true that classic conservative Protestants are being more restrained in their critique of the Pope than they have in the past, largely because conservative Catholics now make up a significant part of their voting block, but it doesn't surprise me that Pope Francis makes them crazy, if only because a significant aspect of conservative Catholicism IS Papal obedience, which was safe enough when Popes were sticking to safe subjects like birth control and abortion, but now that a Pope is reinforcing Biblical commands about helping the poor and the immigrant, the message has gotten somewhat muddled.
But in general, a lot of these conservatives, the ones who actually do have Christian roots, come from a tradition that was always going to be, at the very best, HIGHLY suspicious of anything that came from under the Papal hat, and for (ostensibly) religious reasons.
So no, current opposition to the Pope, especially as he makes his American visit, is not the clinching proof that the Christianity of American Conservatives is just a talking point to rally support. All it proves, in the end, is that old habits die hard.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Monday, September 21, 2015
Reader Question- Harassment
I played your game. Kinda fun and funny, but could you actually say what your position on harassment is? -Anon
--------
What, stop making games for a second and do some of that pastoring that some people know me for? I suppose I could do that. By the way, (SHAMELESS PLUG!) you can pick up a copy of the game, Jogger, for free, HERE! (/Shameless plug)
I always thought that this was settled pretty definitively by the Golden Rule, the whole "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," thing, but it does leave a bit of plausible deniability, usually in the vein of, "Hey, I'd LOVE to have a bunch of girls yelling about how attractive they find me!" Of course, that isn't what harassment is, but that is the picture of it some people take, likely precisely to shed any suspicions that they're actually being jerks.
Religion, as a whole, has never done well with this kind of thing, for obvious reasons: Pastors who preach against sin are themselves sinners, and a part of the whole "sinner" thing is wanting to portray yourself as less of a sinner than you actually are.
Christianity itself does not have a hard and fast "modesty code" for women as some other faiths do, which you'd think would make the whole thing less of a problem, but obviously that isn't the case. Instead, a lot of preachers and teachers fall back on the Biblical command of "Thou shalt not lead your brother sin," as an injunction against women who commit the unthinkable crime of being women in the presence of men.
Now, even a cursory look at the text will show that such an interpretation is grossly out of context for a passage that was talking, instead, of not pushing less experienced members of the faith into activities they assume are sinful, like in this case, eating food sacrificed to idols. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, because it's just a big rock, but to those who feel like it would be worship of a false God, let them get there on their own, don't "lead them to sin."
So that text is not, at all, not even a little bit, about women dressing modestly so guys don't get all pants-tingly around them. There IS however, a text EXPLICITLY about that situation, directly aimed at what Jesus' opinion is of guys who "just can't help themselves" when they see an attractive girl.
"If your eyes cause you to sin, gouge them out. Better to lose your sight than your soul."
Some people read that as a threat of hellfire but I tend to think Jesus is pointing us closer to home... if your eyes make it so that you cannot behave like a human being, but somehow FORCE you to become some kind of animal with catcalls and threats and making another human being uncomfortable simply by virtue of being in your presence, then get rid of them.
How you feel about another human being in your presence, and especially how you behave towards them, is not on them for their choices of dress or appearance. It's on you, because you are not an animal, not an automaton. You are a human being. So act like it, and be responsible. And if you can't do that, then do what it takes so that you can.
--------
What, stop making games for a second and do some of that pastoring that some people know me for? I suppose I could do that. By the way, (SHAMELESS PLUG!) you can pick up a copy of the game, Jogger, for free, HERE! (/Shameless plug)
I always thought that this was settled pretty definitively by the Golden Rule, the whole "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," thing, but it does leave a bit of plausible deniability, usually in the vein of, "Hey, I'd LOVE to have a bunch of girls yelling about how attractive they find me!" Of course, that isn't what harassment is, but that is the picture of it some people take, likely precisely to shed any suspicions that they're actually being jerks.
Religion, as a whole, has never done well with this kind of thing, for obvious reasons: Pastors who preach against sin are themselves sinners, and a part of the whole "sinner" thing is wanting to portray yourself as less of a sinner than you actually are.
Christianity itself does not have a hard and fast "modesty code" for women as some other faiths do, which you'd think would make the whole thing less of a problem, but obviously that isn't the case. Instead, a lot of preachers and teachers fall back on the Biblical command of "Thou shalt not lead your brother sin," as an injunction against women who commit the unthinkable crime of being women in the presence of men.
Now, even a cursory look at the text will show that such an interpretation is grossly out of context for a passage that was talking, instead, of not pushing less experienced members of the faith into activities they assume are sinful, like in this case, eating food sacrificed to idols. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, because it's just a big rock, but to those who feel like it would be worship of a false God, let them get there on their own, don't "lead them to sin."
So that text is not, at all, not even a little bit, about women dressing modestly so guys don't get all pants-tingly around them. There IS however, a text EXPLICITLY about that situation, directly aimed at what Jesus' opinion is of guys who "just can't help themselves" when they see an attractive girl.
"If your eyes cause you to sin, gouge them out. Better to lose your sight than your soul."
Some people read that as a threat of hellfire but I tend to think Jesus is pointing us closer to home... if your eyes make it so that you cannot behave like a human being, but somehow FORCE you to become some kind of animal with catcalls and threats and making another human being uncomfortable simply by virtue of being in your presence, then get rid of them.
How you feel about another human being in your presence, and especially how you behave towards them, is not on them for their choices of dress or appearance. It's on you, because you are not an animal, not an automaton. You are a human being. So act like it, and be responsible. And if you can't do that, then do what it takes so that you can.
Just Going For a Jog.
So I've poofed a bit lately. Some has been a bit of business at the start of the school year, but a lot of it has been a new side hobby: making video games.
Well, the hobby isn't precisely NEW. It's something I've been doing for years, off and on, with the help of various programs that take some of the heavy lifting out of video game design. About a year or so ago I purchased a program called Game Maker Studio, a highly recommended platform for such game development, but immediately got intimidated... despite all my dreams, it was clear the platform would not just make the game for me.
Sad day, I know.
So it was just hanging out on my harddrive, not doing much of anything, until about a month ago when I decided that just having it there was ridiculous, and that with all the resources available on the internet, surely I could learn the basic code required to make a game. So I rolled up my sleeves and dove in.
I am, therefore, very happy to announce the creation of Jogger, a 2d side-scroller where you play a female jogger attempting to avoid harassment on the streets, with humor aimed at the whole "look how she was dressed," or "learn to take a compliment" crowd.
So far it is only available for PC (until I spring for the Pro package for Studio) but you can download it here if you are interested.
I hope you enjoy... it was a lot of fun to make it!
Well, the hobby isn't precisely NEW. It's something I've been doing for years, off and on, with the help of various programs that take some of the heavy lifting out of video game design. About a year or so ago I purchased a program called Game Maker Studio, a highly recommended platform for such game development, but immediately got intimidated... despite all my dreams, it was clear the platform would not just make the game for me.
Sad day, I know.
So it was just hanging out on my harddrive, not doing much of anything, until about a month ago when I decided that just having it there was ridiculous, and that with all the resources available on the internet, surely I could learn the basic code required to make a game. So I rolled up my sleeves and dove in.
I am, therefore, very happy to announce the creation of Jogger, a 2d side-scroller where you play a female jogger attempting to avoid harassment on the streets, with humor aimed at the whole "look how she was dressed," or "learn to take a compliment" crowd.
So far it is only available for PC (until I spring for the Pro package for Studio) but you can download it here if you are interested.
I hope you enjoy... it was a lot of fun to make it!
Monday, September 7, 2015
Reader Question: Faith Like a Child
I was asking my minister questions about why certain things are the way they are in scripture, and he told me to have a more "childlike faith." What did he mean by that? -Jackie
--------------
Thanks for writing in, Jackie. And I am terribly sorry to tell you this, but what he meant was "shut up."
"Faith like a child" is often used in the church as shorthand for a young, idealized, easy faith. A faith that always follows authority, that does as it is told, that asks no questions. Essentially, it is "faith" where one believes precisely as they are told to, and doesn't make life difficult for clergy who maybe, just maybe, were phoning it in and couldn't be bothered to actually think today.
It is also, as it happens, total crap.
The phrase is derived from a Bible passage where a group of children are trying to get to Jesus, and the apostles are shooing them away. Jesus rebukes the disciples, telling them to allow the children to come forward, because one must be like a child to get into the kingdom of heaven.
So a bunch of people have run with that, espousing childlike faith as the ONLY way to be brought into the kingdom. But while that does have some merit, what does NOT have any is their concept of childlike faith as some sort of blank canvas, all accepting, all obeying, total submission state of being. When people use "faith like a child" to mean all of that, I often wonder if they have ever spent any amount of time around real children.
It's utterly ridiculous. We KNOW that. It's an ingrained part of our culture, even. We know that kids don't sit still, don't follow societies rules just because they're the rules. They don't simply accept explanations, they ask WHY. They don't simply accept that they are supposed to sit down and shut up, they will get their needs known. If something feels wrong, they will say so. If something doesn't make sense, they will ask about it. It was a child who noticed that the Emperor didn't have any clothes on, and pointed it out, because they hadn't been brainwashed into lying for the sake of going along with society yet.
I mean, come on. Why do you think the disciples were shooing away the kids at all? Because they were worried that the kids were going to be quiet and submissive all over the place? NO! Because kids are loud, noisy, and ask questions, even when that isn't the sweet and polite thing to do.
You know who DOES do all of that, though? A LOT of adults. People who know societies rules and follow them instinctively. If next Sunday I got up in my pulpit and started preaching utter nonsense, at least some people would go along with it, not because they believed it, but because they have been trained not to question what a pastor says, even if it is clearly and plainly ludicrous. They see, as plain as anyone, that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, but are too shy and embarrassed to admit it.
Kids are noisy, brash, and ask questions at the worst possible time. And so we, as grownups, often seek to ignore them, to put them away, or to try to accelerate their training so they will know to just shut up, already. When the disciples tried to do precisely that, Jesus shut them down, and said to bring the children forward. You know what that means?
It means that we should have faith like children. Not quiet, passive, or submissive, but intense, loud, and curious. If something doesn't add up, we should point it out. If something isn't right, we should say so. Kids do it because they haven't learned when it would be societally simpler for them to just be quiet.
We should do it because that, not sweet submissive silence, is what faith really is.
--------------
Thanks for writing in, Jackie. And I am terribly sorry to tell you this, but what he meant was "shut up."
"Faith like a child" is often used in the church as shorthand for a young, idealized, easy faith. A faith that always follows authority, that does as it is told, that asks no questions. Essentially, it is "faith" where one believes precisely as they are told to, and doesn't make life difficult for clergy who maybe, just maybe, were phoning it in and couldn't be bothered to actually think today.
It is also, as it happens, total crap.
The phrase is derived from a Bible passage where a group of children are trying to get to Jesus, and the apostles are shooing them away. Jesus rebukes the disciples, telling them to allow the children to come forward, because one must be like a child to get into the kingdom of heaven.
So a bunch of people have run with that, espousing childlike faith as the ONLY way to be brought into the kingdom. But while that does have some merit, what does NOT have any is their concept of childlike faith as some sort of blank canvas, all accepting, all obeying, total submission state of being. When people use "faith like a child" to mean all of that, I often wonder if they have ever spent any amount of time around real children.
It's utterly ridiculous. We KNOW that. It's an ingrained part of our culture, even. We know that kids don't sit still, don't follow societies rules just because they're the rules. They don't simply accept explanations, they ask WHY. They don't simply accept that they are supposed to sit down and shut up, they will get their needs known. If something feels wrong, they will say so. If something doesn't make sense, they will ask about it. It was a child who noticed that the Emperor didn't have any clothes on, and pointed it out, because they hadn't been brainwashed into lying for the sake of going along with society yet.
I mean, come on. Why do you think the disciples were shooing away the kids at all? Because they were worried that the kids were going to be quiet and submissive all over the place? NO! Because kids are loud, noisy, and ask questions, even when that isn't the sweet and polite thing to do.
You know who DOES do all of that, though? A LOT of adults. People who know societies rules and follow them instinctively. If next Sunday I got up in my pulpit and started preaching utter nonsense, at least some people would go along with it, not because they believed it, but because they have been trained not to question what a pastor says, even if it is clearly and plainly ludicrous. They see, as plain as anyone, that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, but are too shy and embarrassed to admit it.
Kids are noisy, brash, and ask questions at the worst possible time. And so we, as grownups, often seek to ignore them, to put them away, or to try to accelerate their training so they will know to just shut up, already. When the disciples tried to do precisely that, Jesus shut them down, and said to bring the children forward. You know what that means?
It means that we should have faith like children. Not quiet, passive, or submissive, but intense, loud, and curious. If something doesn't add up, we should point it out. If something isn't right, we should say so. Kids do it because they haven't learned when it would be societally simpler for them to just be quiet.
We should do it because that, not sweet submissive silence, is what faith really is.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Pastors as Porn Stars (Or What to Do if your Faith won't Let You Do Something.)
There are a number of things that I cannot do because of my faith. Mind you, there are usually OTHER factors as well, such as what kind of person I am, and my understanding of the world and what kind of world I want that to be... but as those are factors heavily influenced by my faith, I think it is fair to say that my faith prohibits me from such action.
For instance, I made a vow before God and witnesses to be faithful to my wife, which among other things means sexual fidelity. So having sex with someone else is prohibited by my faith, which means that I probably shouldn't get a job in porn.
Now, we all know that the situation of Kim Davis (the Kentucky Clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, despite multiple court orders, allegedly because of her faith) isn't exactly like that. Gay marriage wasn't a part of the package, and she should know, since she seemed to have inherited the job from her father and was preparing to pass it on to her son. (Odd, for an elected position, but I digress.) So let's run the above scenario in a position more pertinent to her.
Let's assume for a moment that the Presbyterian Church, in which I am ordained, decided that in order to raise more money, its Teaching Elders (my formal title) were required to star in pornography. Think of all the cash that would bring in! (My name would be Rev. Spencer Cleveland, now tell me ALL your sins, baby.)
Just one problem... my faith doesn't allow me to do porn. Even if my denomination did, my personal faith does not. Now let's say this decision got appealed and, going all the way to the top, was finally approved by the denominational governement, our General Assembly. Pastors are now Porn Stars, and my church is setting up the studio and lining up partners for my first shoot. What do I do?
Some would say that the courageous thing for me to do would be to stick it out (sorry, bad phrasing) and defy such expectations, standing proudly exposed (whoops again) for my ideals and refusing to bend to such pressure, saying "this is who I am, look at me in all of my (ethical) glory!"
But really, I should probably just quit my job, and get one where the base requirements do not include the violation of my faith, for precisely the same reasons that I wouldn't simply go out and get a job in porn, or why a member of the Amish community wouldn't join the military, or why a Scientologist wouldn't become a Psychologist.
People of faith often like to sound like martyrs, to be the brave hero who stands up for what they believe in, but the fact of the matter is that the world doesn't owe us a living, and nowhere in the Bible does it say to get paid for a job you refuse to do. If you cannot perform your job for religious reasons, then you shouldn't have your job. Leave it. Get out. Find a job that doesn't ask you to compromise your faith, where you aren't constantly in a battle between what you believe you should do and what you are being paid to do.
It really is just that simple.
For instance, I made a vow before God and witnesses to be faithful to my wife, which among other things means sexual fidelity. So having sex with someone else is prohibited by my faith, which means that I probably shouldn't get a job in porn.
Now, we all know that the situation of Kim Davis (the Kentucky Clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, despite multiple court orders, allegedly because of her faith) isn't exactly like that. Gay marriage wasn't a part of the package, and she should know, since she seemed to have inherited the job from her father and was preparing to pass it on to her son. (Odd, for an elected position, but I digress.) So let's run the above scenario in a position more pertinent to her.
Let's assume for a moment that the Presbyterian Church, in which I am ordained, decided that in order to raise more money, its Teaching Elders (my formal title) were required to star in pornography. Think of all the cash that would bring in! (My name would be Rev. Spencer Cleveland, now tell me ALL your sins, baby.)
Just one problem... my faith doesn't allow me to do porn. Even if my denomination did, my personal faith does not. Now let's say this decision got appealed and, going all the way to the top, was finally approved by the denominational governement, our General Assembly. Pastors are now Porn Stars, and my church is setting up the studio and lining up partners for my first shoot. What do I do?
Some would say that the courageous thing for me to do would be to stick it out (sorry, bad phrasing) and defy such expectations, standing proudly exposed (whoops again) for my ideals and refusing to bend to such pressure, saying "this is who I am, look at me in all of my (ethical) glory!"
But really, I should probably just quit my job, and get one where the base requirements do not include the violation of my faith, for precisely the same reasons that I wouldn't simply go out and get a job in porn, or why a member of the Amish community wouldn't join the military, or why a Scientologist wouldn't become a Psychologist.
People of faith often like to sound like martyrs, to be the brave hero who stands up for what they believe in, but the fact of the matter is that the world doesn't owe us a living, and nowhere in the Bible does it say to get paid for a job you refuse to do. If you cannot perform your job for religious reasons, then you shouldn't have your job. Leave it. Get out. Find a job that doesn't ask you to compromise your faith, where you aren't constantly in a battle between what you believe you should do and what you are being paid to do.
It really is just that simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)