Fruits of the Spirit

"I imagine a future in the church when the call to chastity would no longer sound like a dreary sentence to lifelong loneliness for a gay Christian like me. I imagine Christian communities in which friendships are celebrated and honored—where it’s normal for families to live near or with single people; where it’s expected that celibate gay people would form significant attachments to other single people, families, and pastors; where it’s standard practice for friends to spend holidays together or share vacations; where it’s not out of the ordinary for friends to consider staying put, resisting the allure of constant mobility, for the sake of their friendships. I imagine a church where genuine love isn’t located exclusively or even primarily in marriage, but where marriage and friendship and other bonds of affection are all seen as different forms of the same love we all are called to pursue.

By shifting our practice of friendship to a more committed, honored form of love, we can witness—above all—to a kingdom in which the ties between spiritual siblings are the strongest ties of all. Marriage, Jesus tells us, will be entirely transformed in the future, barely recognizable to those who know it in its present form (Matt. 22:30). Bonds of biology, likewise, are relativized in Jesus’ world (Mark 3:31–35). But the loves that unite Christians to each other across marital, racial, and familial lines are loves that will last. More than that, they are loves that witness that Christ’s love is available to all. Not everyone can be a parent or a spouse, but anyone and everyone can be a friend."

— Why Can’t Men Be Friends? | Wesley Hill

(via More than 95 Theses)

I appreciate that this article is primarily arguing for the need to call for stronger bonds of friendship within churches.  To re-establish a norm whereby men can be close emotionally, without fears of gay panic on their own part or being seen as potentially gay by outside parties.  For one thing, I think it would, in the end, go a great distance to getting evangelicals to understand that gay relationships relationships can be as meaningful as their own.  Once you've admitted that men can be close, even devoted to each other emotionally, and not necessarily sexual you can maybe start to see how some men, who aren't sexually attracted to women but to men, would choose to express that devotion and emotional attachment physically.  In other words, it would only do wonders for straight men to remove the specter of terrifying gayness, the expectation or fear that men who are emotionally close must inevitably fornicate. And maybe, just hopefully, humanize gay men in the process.

Having said that, I lament the frame of "the call to chastity" for gay people who want to remain church members in good standing.  I'm not going to say that the author of the article, a church-loving gay man, doesn't feel a call to chastity.  I am however going to push back on the notion that straight patriarchs like to propagate: that God is calling all gay men to chastity.  I refuse the many subtle and not-so-subtle hints that the bible is "pretty clear" on two gay men who love each other getting married because it is not.  I push back on the notion that discomfort with homosexuality comes directly from the bible and not from culture warriors who have been pushing a culture war against homosexuality for the last 50 years.

I want to remind gay people and the church members who can't abide gay people that the fruits of the spirit are "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" and suggest that if you can't exercise any of these traits in relation to your gay brothers and sisters that maybe your attitudes toward them don't stem from the bible or biblical principles at all.  I want to suggest that the self-control indicated here is not the self-control you think everyone else should be having in how they show loving affection towards each other but the self-control you should have in learning to treat people with kindness and respect, even if their differences make you personally uncomfortable.

I want to remind the biblical enthusiast that there are exactly 3 verses dealing with homosexual sex, none dealing with committed homosexual lovers, and an avalanche of texts exhorting people to practice love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.  And that maybe if not fellowshipping with gay people because of 3 verses conflicts with countless others asking that you take them in and feed them and love them and fellowship with them that maybe you have misunderstood what God is asking you to do.

I'd like to suggest there is a difference between worshipping a God embodied by love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control and worshipping a document with more specific rules written for other times and places.  I would gently suggest it is vital the modern Christian decide whether they worship the letter of the law as they think they read it or the spirit of the law behind it.  I would further suggest that when the letter of the law conflicts with the spirit of the law, the spirit should win or you really just worship the book.  To belabor the point, if the letter of the law brings you to act without love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control then the letter of the law as written or interpreted or implemented is a product of man's culture, not God's love.

I've never seen my mother, a good christian woman, happier than when she realized she didn't have to create an artificial distance between herself and gay people, and therefore her son.  That maybe God was not calling the church to drive some sinners from the church but not others with the "good" sins.  That maybe her natural christian instinct to practice  love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control was not limited by whether the person she was dealing with was gay or not.

I'd like to suggest that what God has called people to is strictly up to the person called, and is not something someone outside that person's mind is going to be qualified to comment on.  I'd like to suggest that the church has a surprising lack of training on distinguishing the difference between being moved by the Holy Spirit and being moved by one's own cultural biases.  And that this particular lack of training is their biggest stumbling block in showing the fruits of the spirit to the secular world.

I'd like to suggest that the culture war against gay people and against gay marriage has far more to do with the cultural biases of some believers and the cultural biases of pop culture warriors than it does with God's love.  And I say that because the culture war against gay people has does not yield the fruits of the spirit and it does not lead church members to act with love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control towards gay citizens.

I would suggest is is strange when Christians cry persecution and foul play when it is suggested that they could practice love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control in regards to gay marriage.  I would suggest that it is passing strange when Christians insist that marriage, which they believe can bring a couple closer to God and yield the fruits of the spirit in their lives, would then task themselves with making sure homosexuals are deprived the opportunity to know God in this way.

I would suggest that when gay Christians report no feelings of judgement or conflict with God's law when they are physically and emotionally intimate with their partners, when they believe that relationship has helped bring them love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, that maybe it's not the holy spirit that moves christians to disfellowship them.

I would suggest that if non-celibate gay christians are integrated into church congregations, and what they bring is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, then they are, and may God forgive me for this pun, fruits of the spirit.

I would suggest that while teaching men to form intimate but chaste emotional bonds again is great, it does not necessarily follow that this is the only path God has provided for gay men, any more it is the only path for companionship God has provided for straight men.   I suggest that there is a lot of room in love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control for devoted homosexuals to share a kiss and hold hands in order to show their affection for one another, and that chastity is not the consolation prize God gives gay people for creating them different.  Where is the love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control in demanding chastity in other consenting, devoted adults, but reserving the option of enthusiastic not-chastity for your own relationships?

Reasonable people can disagree. But as far as I'm concerned, no "fruits" allowed in your congregation? No fruits of the spirit then either.

Today's Agnostic Prayer

To whom it may concern,
to whoever's on the line,
To whatever mingles with us,
Invisible or divine.

Whoever takes the credit,
I just wanted to say,
I'm happy to be down here,
On this material plane today.

You may not really be out there,
You may not have a name,
I don't know what's really going on,
But I'm grateful just the same.

Emotionless Eggheads at the top, Idiots with feelings at the bottom

The best line of dialog that ever happened in community happened in their last episode on NBC.  They find Russell Borchert, who has been hiding in a bunker for 30 years, trying to build a machine with feeilngs, because:

Russell:  But without an emotional component, computers would strip us of all humanity and create a society with emotionless eggheads at the top and idiots with feelings at the bottom.  And I refuse to let that happen, and that’s why I’ve spent — What?  What is that?

Britta:  It’s a video of a Kitten

Russell:  And why are those people arguing about it?  And what’s that?

Abed:  That’s an emoticon. That person wants to convey happiness, but they can’t do it with language, so they misuse punctuation to form a smile.

Russell:  *sighs*  That is so … stupid!  Only an idiot would think of this!  Idiots won!

This about sums up my feelings about the world right now.

No, I don't know how to fix it either.

:(

Facebook Slaying

Pulled the plug on Facebook today.  Harder to do than anticipated!  I have more ties on there than I thought I did I think.  Facebook made it easier by being unable to resist one last attempt at manipulation on the logout page itself by putting up random pictures of my friends and telling me they'll miss me.  I suppose I can thank them for not overtly drawing tears onto algorithmically detected eyes?  How creepy is that though?  Facebook doesn't speak for my friends,  and should not pretend to in any circumstance.

Of course, leaving Facebook is like trying to kill the hydra, so no sooner had I suspended Facebook, than I reactivated it by logging into Spotify.  I then discovered that since I made my spotify account with my Facebook login, I would need to unsubscribe from spotify entirely and recreate a facebook-less acount and then re-subscribe in order to keep using it.  After growling briefly, did just that.  Spotify account unsubscribed.  Slightly less manipulation from Spotify but still passive-aggressive, "You're too dumb to know what you're doing so lets remind you of all the good things you can't possibly want to give up." from them on the unsubscribe page.  Social media are like abusive exes when you try to leave.  Super not into that bullshit.  Goddamn professionals should not program web pages that say anything other than:

 "would you like to deactivate your account?"
*yes*
 "Account deactivated, thank you for your business."

So, Facebook account redeactivated.

In the meantime, sharpening my sword and watching patiently for more heads to sprout.

Some more Solipsism

I am shaking up my online world in bits and pieces this week.  I'm quitting Facebook tomorrow, perhaps temporarily, perhaps not.  I'm having second thoughts about it, but wrote a big long essay about how Facebook is built on business practices I find gross so I think I'm committed.  But it is true, I hate everything about it.  It's not a free service.  It's just the price isn't money it's tiny little advertising pitches in the corners of your eyes, a complete surrender of the concept of online privacy and consent to disclose information all to sell you and our valuable metadata.  Metadata is the precious ambergris of our generation.  We the fat, simple whales tagged, tracked and skimmed for our precious, valuable clicks and buys and likes.  

I do go on.  Facebook sucks, and we all know it and it's not just the geocities era website aesthetic.  I don't think I can build better friendships on a platform so comprised at a core level in terms of basic human decency.  I choose not to do it.  I wish there was something LIKE Facebook, except not devoted to tracking and manipulating it's users, but there isn't, not yet.  Although the field is WIDE OPEN for a better way to engage on the internet.  Twitter is apparently thinking of tweaking people's timelines similar to the way Facebook uses and algorithm to manipulate user feeds.  InterNOT.

That was a Newsradio reference, which you should know because that show is wonderful.

I just switched my Goodreads name to my Twitter alias, which seems to confuse people.  I'm increasingly enjoying going by that name.  I'm increasingly considering going by the name in real life to new people.  I've been in a rut, mentally and spiritually for quite a while now and using that name helps me imagine other ways that I want to be. Not that I plan on going by a new name every time I try to make a behavior change, but I have been trying to get past some possibly fictitious barrier in my life for a while now.  From someone who is HERE to someone who is THERE and I think once that switch finally decides to flip it will be a noticeable change.  In which case the new name will seem more appropriate.  Also, I've been increasingly liking the idea of having a secret name with my tribe and a public name for the world, which, of course, I got from my latest rewatch of Dune.  The point here is, this makes sense to me on a level that I believe is not unreasonable.  And once I finish sorting it out it will seem more reasonable.  No, my secret name is not Usul.  On a related note, personally I am convinced Captain Von Trapp was Fremen.  It's the only thing that explains the names he gave his children.

I just figured out how to embed my goodreads reviews in my blog, so that's exciting.  Now I just need to figure what the hell is up with my blogs.  I like Contents May Settle, I like having a space to try and write more polished things, or more formal pieces not, say, about me, myself and I.  Many of my "reviews" don't really hold up to my own standards though, which makes me feel inclined to post them here, which is a more, uh, experimental place.  Or maybe I could stop being lazy and make a better blog site for myself, with tabs for reviews, blogs, micro-blogging, social media.  And maybe some bigger projects should I ever figure out how to wrangle my anxiety and undiagnosed ADD enough to actually finish things.  Maybe the process will be, first impressions on goodreads, and then the reviews I want to flesh out I can post on CMS.  Works in progress will go here.

Twitter can stay as long as it doesn't try to emulate its big brother too much.  I try to follow people who post interesting links to articles in my general areas of interest and trying to stay out of silly fights with famous authors and it's been more useful.

I think I actually need to start taking notes if I want my reviews to get better.  Just so I can quote some of the better lines and maybe help my thoughts come together.  The truth is the books I've been reading have been sparking good trains of thought and I want to talk about them coherently.  Notes would help.

Other than that, I think I need to start exercising, reading more, avoiding LCD screens more and getting into the forest to stay sane.  You know what I like about trees?  They don't try to sell me shit based on the pattern of my footfalls.

Upcoming pieces, which I've been dragging my feet on and should abandon but would like to actually finish:

Some thoughts on Terry Pratchett's the Long Earth and the ideas therein.

What's smart about Mieville's the City and the City and why I misread it so badly when I first started it.

A 4 book review opus plus essay dealing with paranormal topics, because why not and I want to.

About 8 short stories that I really want to write.

Some brief thoughts on this summer's movies.  You know that little movie Guardians of the Galaxy?  It's good.  You should see it.

Some thoughts on spirituality versus secularism and my struggles with it.

That seems like enough to start, I guess?

That's the haps.  That's the peeps.  That's the lint swirling around the old navel.

The Long Hello

The Long Earth by Terry Pratchett
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

If you're looking for some light SF reading, you could do much worse than the Long Earth. I find it interesting that people are accusing this of being stealth YA material, because it read to me much more like the classic SF stories I love which are big on ideas and light on complicated prose. I love the exploration here of the Long Earth, and western civilization's tendency to push ever westward into unexplored territory. I love the push and pull between Lobsang and Joshua as two oddballs off to explore the multiverse. I even love the attempt to work old mythology into the premise, which works surprisingly well.

This is a classic adventure story more along the lines of Journey to the Center of the Earth more than anything. The premise here is so big that the potential implications of the discovery on datum Earth and humanity as a whole are only barely touched before it works its way to the big cliff-hanger finale. I like the little touches of Pratchett's humor and I like how weird it gets to towards the end.

While other discerning readers may want to quibble about the ending, or the writing style or what-have-you, all I'll say is it consistently kept me turning pages because I had to see what they discovered next. That's good enough for me to recommend it.

-1 star for the cliffhanger ending, because I hate cliffhangers.

View all my reviews