The Hall Boys, Miley and the Moral Compass.

So this week I watched as my feed filled up yet again with talk of modesty. The cascade of digital atta girls, also known as reposts by people I know and love were of an article by Kimberly Hall called, “FYI (if you’re a teenage girl)” (If you haven’t read it yet, go check it out. I will wait right here).

These reposts were prefaced by statements like,

“parenting win”
“it’s about time”
and
“as a mother of sons, thank you”

I was also encouraged by a number of response articles. Some grace filled, some snarky; some from other christians and some from non or former christians. Posts such as Seeing a Woman by Nate Pyle, which said in part:

Unfortunately, much of how the sexes interact with each is rooted in fear. Fear of rejection, fear of abuse, fear of being out of control. In some ways, the church has added to this. We fear each other because we have been taught the other is dangerous. We’ve been taught a woman’s body will cause men to sin. We’re told that if a woman shows too much of her body men will do stupid things. Let’s be clear: a woman’s body is not dangerous to you. Her body will not cause you harm. It will not make you do stupid things. If you do stupid things it is because you chose to do stupid things. So don’t contribute to the fear that exists between men and women.

A woman’s body is beautiful and wonderful and mysterious. Respect it by respecting her as an individual with hopes and dreams and experiences and emotions and longings. Let her be confident. Encourage her confidence. But don’t do all this because she is weaker. That’s the biggest bunch of crap out there. Women are not weaker than men. They are not the weaker sex. They are the other sex.

I’m not telling you to not look at women. Just the opposite. I’m telling you to see women. Really see them. Not just with your eyes, but with your heart. Don’t look to see something that tickles your senses, but see a human being.

My hope is that changing how you see women will change how you are around them. Don’t just be around women. Be with women.

Or this gem from Renegade Mothering (Language warning): FYI (If you’re a Hall boy)

In other words, it places the responsibility of YOUR morality on the shoulders of others, and that is wholeheartedly idiotic. I mean, how could anybody ever be a decent person if circumstances beyond our control determined what we think and how we behave? It also, incidentally, fuels what we like to call “rape culture,” wherein the girl is raped by the boy because she was a “slut” and therefore “asking for it.” The boy was the real victim because he was rendered powerless by her unprotected vagina and lack of bra. Your mother’s idea that GIRLS need to cover themselves so YOU can behave like a gentleman is the exact same mentality that fuels rape culture, and results in things like Steubenville or 30-day sentences for pedophile rapists.

And this one. THIS ONE. I want to post it in its entirety because it is just that good. But I trust you, go read this one yourself. It is called An “FYI” to My Daughters by The Lippy Lactator. Here is a small taste of the greatness:

Don’t get caught up in it all, my darlings. Don’t wear that mini skirt because you want the attention of that guy. If that guy is worth your time, he will like you regardless of what you wear. Sex obviously sells, which is a sad thing. You see it everywhere, I know you do. Remember that you are MORE than just sex to the world. You deserve to be treated that way, and the way you dress doesn’t make you any less deserving of that. However, if you love how confident you feel in that mini skirt, or that bathing suit is *just* your style…by all means…rock it, sister. Wear the clothes you love for you. But be sure to take the time to get to know you. Take the time to learn to love you.

Parents need stop with the gender stereotyping. They are doing much, much more harm than good. They teach their boys that girls who dress a way they don’t find appropriate aren’t worth the time and acceptance of their son. They teach them that girls are just temptresses out to muddy the thoughts of their precious little boy. They teach their children that it is OK to sit down as a family and scroll through their social media and shame anyone who doesn’t fit in the tiny little box they keep them in. They teach them that girls who act or dress or believe differently than them have no character. No self respect. No right to be respected by others. They are doing nothing but perpetuating this horrible cycle. And trust me, no matter how much you try to be *perfect* for their son, this type of person will always find something “wrong” with you. No girl will ever be deserving of their perfect little son. Ever.

Now, let’s flashback to the VMA’s of a couple weeks ago when my feed was full of Miley & Robin. Well, actually if we are being honest, it was full of Miley, because frankly we all know Robin Thicke had nothing to do with what happened to him on that stage. He was the helpless male totally at the whim of Miss Cyrus and his own libido. I mean if presented with the opportunity no man alive would have the power to make another choice. Nevermind that Ms. Cyrus was nowhere to be found when he made his Blurred Lines video. But I digress.

I have been thinking about writing about “The Performance” on and off since it happened. Part of me was exhausted by just the thought of trying to organize my thoughts on the topic and part of me was just bored of it all. I mean, a shock value performance on the VMA’s? Ho Hum. Hasn’t that been happening like, forever? First there was that grandmother of all shockers, Madonna, then came her offspring… Brittney, Christina, Gaga and Miley. [Special mention to Prince and his assless pants: what you don’t remember that?] I guess the girls are the ones we remember most] Its like 4 generations of powerful women shocking people all the way to the bank.

Admit it. America kind of gets off on feigning shock and outrage over these performances. And yes, I agree they don’t do much to elevate the conversation on gender equality. Except, I suppose, when they shine a bright light on our tendency (as made blatantly obvious by the general pass given to the married, 36 year old father, Robin Thicke) to throw out the boys will be boys cliché and make sure we tell the women involved to cover up and be a lady. I mean, Mrs. Hall, back me up on this one…have the women of our generation who ran around dressed like Madonna in bustiers, crinoline and rubber bracelets forgotten that a little rebellion and a little sexuality didn’t kill us like so many thought it would? Or that most of the women who were doing that are now grown up productive members of society, some even of churches?

This morning I read a piece by Christian Piatt over at Patheos in which he discusses the Miley post fest and I couldn’t help but think of it in light of Mrs. Hall’s letter to teenage girls. He writes:

Although in some respects, women and girls have made strides toward gender parity in our culture, there is still a persistent, if sometimes subtle, subtext narrated to our girls, which is that sex is the most efficient and potent mean of access to power they have. Yes, my daughter is told now at such a young age that she can be anything she wants when she grows up. And I hope that is true, but I already hear the comments from friends, family members and teachers about her appearance and anticipated future success with boys, and how it affects her behavior. and honestly, it only gets more pronounced as girls reach puberty and beyond.

So perhaps, rather than men in power resisting the progress of women being the greatest current barrier to parity, it now is the unpleasant reality that sexualizing young women works for innumerable purposes in our world. None more so, perhaps, than the popular music industry. So it’s really a bit disingenuous of us to express shock or disgust when Miley Cyrus fondles herself or engages in orgiastic dance numbers in front of an audience of millions. After all, the culture set up the rules of the game long ago and, in spite of our assertions to the contrary, the economies of power, money and fame depend heavily on appealing to our baser instincts.

So judge Miley if you must, but in doing so, realize that she is only a speck that is part of a much larger log in our collective cultural eye.

Do you see lovelies? When Miley states that she told people her performance was going to make history and then it becomes one of the most tweeted events ever we expose our morbid fascination with the perceived sins of others. We are all stuck with Miley on a merry-go-round that is very hard to get off. The cycle goes something like this:

Women/Girls are slut-shamed and told they are responsible for the sins of men and protecting their morality –>

Women/Girls act out in an attempt to grasp power not afforded to them in equal measure by other means –>

People say “see, Women/Girls really are sluts at heart and must be told to cover up before they corrupt men who are just being who God/nature made them (visual creatures who are compelled to spread their seed and are slaves to their anatomy)” –>

Society believes and perpetuates through feigned shock and shame that women/girls are responsible for the sins of men and protecting their morality.

Repeat steps 1-4.

And around and around we go.

side note: I actually read one article today posted by a friend that made many good points. But then he lost me. He kept saying that the reason the church is obsessed with modesty is because of get this, “the church has become feminized”! Once again, it is made the fault of women. The reason women are told to be more modest is because we have believed the lie that we have power over men. He says,

“I believe the Church has become feminized in this: we talk about the Woman as being in control over the Man. She can dress one way to seduce him, or dress another way to leave him free to choose. This is not so. The Man chooses to be seduced or not seduced.”

While I agree that the man is free to choose, I emphatically disagree that this is the result of the feminization (the shift in gender roles and sex roles in a society, group, or organization towards a focus upon the feminine) of the church. This idea that women are responsible for all sexual sin including having the power over a man’s impure thoughts comes not from women or feminism but from the church fathers. Look it up. John Wesley, Tertullian, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Saint Augustine and many more including scads of popular pastors even today espouse this very doctrine.

Honestly it is hard for me to blame Miley (as uncomfortable as her performance made me). She has followed the script and played a role played by many before her. She has taken the reins of power away from the people who have held them in her life and is attempting to chart her own course. Yes, IMHO she is making the mistake of confusing notoriety for respect and fame for admiration. But it is a mistake I have seen over and over. People who were given little or no freedom or autonomy to make decisions, and yes even mistakes (PKs, Quiverfulls, Ultra Conservatives, Child Stars and kids with over protective helicopter parents and yes, perhaps even the Hall boys) sometimes, when they finally get an opportunity to taste freedom, make some pretty destructive choices before they figure out how to lead a balanced life and what course they want to follow. For child stars, children of politicians or mega church pastors they have the unenviable lot of having to do it in the public eye. Their mistakes and missteps while trying to figure out how to live a life of freedom that doesn’t lead to destruction can be very difficult and some sadly won’t live through it. [Here is a question, how could we actually increase the odds that they do live through it? Perhaps a little grace or maybe even just a little less judgement?]

For me lovelies, it comes down to this: Growing up is hard. Raising kids is hard. Stopping the cycle mentioned above is hard. I certainly don’t have all the answers. I empathize with Mrs. Hall in that she really thinks she is helping by joining in the chorus of voices telling girls to cover up and blocking people we deem unworthy by virtue of their perceived shortcomings. But here is the thing: We do not learn to make good choices by turning over our moral compass to someone else to police and we cannot teach our kids to find their moral true north on their own by never letting them hold their own compass. We do not do them any favors when we tell them that an entire gender, a preacher or even we can read the compass for them and that if they follow the bearing of our denomination, gender philosophy or political party they will be safe. Sooner or later they grow up, and they must navigate the often choppy waters of this life for themselves. Hopefully by then the compass we give them has a needle that points them straight to the true north of love, grace and mercy for others and for themselves. And hopefully they know how to read it for themselves.

In the end, it is for me like this song…and I pray that what we have taught both our daughter and our son is enough. That they use the love of Christ as their compass. Love that covers a multitude of mistakes. Love that forgives and keeps no record of wrongs. Love that sees past twerking and selfies and awkward teenage hormones. Love that speaks truth and healing. Love that gives second, third and ninety-fifth chances. Love that says we are all valuable and equal and bear the image of the living God.

The Boat
Billy Falcon

I built this boat
The best I could
With hands of love
From the finest wood
I braced the bow
I stitched the sail
I blessed every brass screw and nail

Lord, go with her when the sea is angry
Lord, go with her in the raging storm
Lord, go with her when the days are cruel
Lord, go with her when the night’s too long

Studied the stars, searchin’ to find
The safest course, and the kindest tide
Lifted her down the stony trail
I set her in the water, and raised her sail

Lord, go with her when the sea is angry
Lord, go with her in the raging storm
Lord, go with her when the days are cruel
Lord, go with her when the night’s too long

Worrying from the watchtower
As the red sky fades
My heart drops to my stomach
As she tumbles through the waves
She slips past the horizon
That’s when I realize
She was always yours
Never really mine

Lord go with her when the sun is golden
Lord go with her when way is clear
Lord go with her when the whole world loves her
Lord go with her When I’m. no longer..

Lord go with her when the sea is angry
Lord go with her in the raging storm
Lord go with her when the days are cruel
Lord go with her when the night’s too long

P.P.P.P.S. This is a thought provoking article called The Moving Target of Morality. I couldn’t figure out how to fit it in so I am just tagging it on as a value added bonus.

AWOL from the Christian Culture War.

“Let them vote ‘no’ to this ordinance, and ‘yes’ to the reign of the kingdom of God,” Pastor Charles Flowers said at the rally. He said this right before joining the crowd in booing Eric Alva, an openly gay Marine staff sergeant who became the first U.S. soldier injured in Iraq when he stepped on a landmine, spoke in favor of an ordinance that would protect people against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity at a San Antonio City Council meeting on Wednesday night.

Sigh. I find the culture war exhausting, distasteful and confusing. I am overcome with the cloud of war and have become convinced that the people who sit in the Christian War Room drawing up plans and maps are fighting for the wrong causes for all the wrong reasons.

So, as of today, I am going AWOL. I am out of here. I am trading in my faith fatigues for flowers and my Bible bombs for hugs.

In reality, I actually defected in my heart a long time ago, and have expressed my dissent and disagreement with the Christian Culture War Machine long and loud on many an occasion. The difference today is that I am declaring my independence and leaving the ranks.

I mean why do people who claim to follow Christ want to fight a war that Jesus never asked them to fight?

In Jesus’ day many people were looking for the Messiah to come in and politically and militarily take over and set up a physical kingdom right then. Many people were actually quite disappointed to find out that Jesus was not interested in removing Caesar or even the Sanhedrin from power. Almost as disappointed perhaps as some might be to learn that Jesus has no interest in impeaching President Obama.

Jesus was also faced with a woman caught in the act of adultery (an offence according to Jewish law that had very specific and dire consequences) he did not stand on the side of the powers that would have chosen to see this woman stoned to death. He stood on the side of the woman and extended radical grace to her. The men who accused her were testing Jesus to see if he would uphold the law. He did not. Do you think there would be the same level of disappointment on the faces of people today when Jesus stands by the side of a woman who chooses abortion and extends radical grace to her?

When people were upset by the company Jesus kept and the parties he attended, when they called him a drunk and a sinner, he didn’t stop to please them. He didn’t cut them off either. He simply continued to be who he was and let people make their own decisions about him. I try to apply this principle on Facebook when people disagree with me. I have yet to sever ties with friends who disagree with me, I continue on being who I believe he calls me to be and allow people the freedom to choose to sever ties or stay friends. I always hope for the latter.

Jesus, though he was able to call down the power of heaven to free himself from the cross, instead chose to absorb the hate and give back forgiveness. I am afraid there were people there who were disappointed that he did not call down the fire and wipe out “the enemies”. Even people who had lived with him and had heard his teachings. How often are God‘s foot soldiers caught up in forcing people to conform to what they believe by passing laws which do nothing to change people’s hearts?

*side note: This isn’t just happening here at home. American Christians are also instrumental in influencing laws in other countries. A prime example of this can be found in Uganda’s Anti-gay Legislation, which you can read about here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=0

As far as I can tell, Jesus was/is on the side of the lepers, the women, the overlooked, the underestimated, the ones who drink too much, say too much, feel to much. He also was/is on the side of the privileged, the zealot, the religious, the goody-two-shoes and the ones who are just too tired to go on. He loves us all. His kingdom is a kingdom of peace. His law is a law of love. His righteousness is a free gift that is neither bought nor earned by any of us.

My allegiance is to this king and this kingdom. Not to some misguided war machine that is dedicated to fighting against the people they were sent to love. Too often they have used Jesus himself as a weapon and his words to wound instead of heal.

The very people Jesus intends to be the Red Cross to a dying and imprisoned world; who he sends to deliver the good news that their imprisonment is over and that God is not holding their sins against them; instead point to the bars and make sure the prisoners knew their captivity is their own damn fault.

Here is the commission I believe Jesus offers and I gladly accept: Ambassador of the God who came near. I will willing and joyfully serve as the Minister of Reconciliation for the one who took all the wrath that humans could dish out and said, I choose love.

Excuse me but the “Modest is Hottest” logo on your t-shirt draws too much attention to your chest.

Remember the other day when I said every guy has a different “line”? Well…

According to The Modesty Survey, I am a stumbling block to at least some men NO MATTER WHAT I DO OR WEAR because I might stand, sit or walk the wrong way.

I humbly submit to you that you cannot follow all of these “guidelines” that are meant to be “helpful”. Just for grins I went to a website by a woman who is trying diligently to dress modestly.

STOP HERE and go check it out: http://inspiredbyfamilymag.com/2012/08/24/how-to-dress-modest-and-stylish/

Ar you back? Cute right?

Every outfit on that page is immodest to at least some of the 1600 men who answered this survey.

Here is a simple list of the percentages of men from the survey who either agree or strongly agree that a particular action or garment or way of wearing said garment is immodest.

The Headings are theirs. The underlined comments are mine.

GENERAL

Girls should always wear clothes that show little body definition (e.g., jumpers or loose dresses). 16.9%

Exposing the chest below the collarbone, even without cleavage, is immodest. 26.1%

Denim jackets with faded sections on the chest draw too much attention to the bust. 31.9%

Girls with less curves can wear clothes that girls with more curves should not. 34.2%

Leotards, sheer skirts, and tutus in theatre or dance performances are immodest. 35.8%

Even modest pajamas are inappropriate for a girl to wear in public. 48.6%

Zipping a form-fitting jacket to just below the chest draws too much attention to the bust. 56.8%

Nude colored clothing looks too much like bare skin. 57.5%

A technically modest outfit can be a stumbling block when it has attached sexual associations (e.g. a “school girl” outfit after Britney Spears released a music video where she was dressed as an “innocent” school girl, but acted very provocatively.) 61.8%

Showing any cleavage is immodest. 70.4%

A modestly dressed girl can still be a stumbling block because of her attitude and behavior. 93.8%

SWIMSUITS

A one-piece swimsuit with shorts on top is immodest. 14.3%

A two-piece swimsuit consisting of a long tank top and skort is immodest. 16.4%

A one-piece swimsuit is immodest. 25.7%

It is a stumbling block when swimsuit ties stick out from under clothing (e.g. tied around the neck). 35%

A tankini with shorts is immodest. 41.8%

A tankini with a bikini-bottom is immodest. 62.6%

It is not okay for a girl to wear a revealing swimsuit (e.g., a bikini) if she wears a t-shirt over it. 55.1%

Halter-top swimsuits are immodest. 56.1%

UNDERGARMENTS

Halter-top bras (i.e. bras with string straps that tie at the back of the neck) are a stumbling block. 56%

Showing bra straps, even unintentionally, is a stumbling block. 57.4%

It is a stumbling block when a girl reaches into her shirt to adjust a bra strap. 65.4%

The lines of undergarments, visible under clothing, cause guys to stumble. 71.6%

SHIRTS/DRESSES

Dresses that are fitted at the waist (e.g. with a belt or waistband) are a stumbling block. 8.4%

Fitted dresses are immodest, even if they do NOT show skin (e.g. a high-neck prom dress). 11.2%

Shirts with floral designs across the front draw too much attention to the bust. 11.9%

Shirts or dresses with chest pockets draw too much attention to the bust. 18.6%

Semi-transparent sleeves are a stumbling block. 19.1%

Sleeveless shirts or dresses (i.e. bare arms) are immodest. 21.1%

Shirts or dresses with cap sleeves are immodest. 21.2%
(Seriously? Cap sleeves?)

Sweatshirts with messages across the front draw too much attention to the bust. 25.1%

Shirts or dresses with empire waists draw too much attention to the bust. 27.5%

V-neck shirts or dresses are a stumbling block, even if they are not revealing. 34.4%

Shirts or dresses that show the shoulders (i.e. more than a normal sleeveless top) are immodest, even if they are not otherwise revealing. 38%

Shirts or dresses (long or short-sleeved) with slits in the sleeves are a stumbling block. 40.8%

A shirt buttoned to just under the bust is a stumbling block, even if a modest shirt is worn underneath. 41.6%

Shirts with messages across the front draw too much attention to the bust. 47%
(Wait, Even if it says, “Modest is Hottest? I am so confused!)

Girls should not wear thin shirts or dresses since they tend to be clingier. 48.3%

Lace-edge camisoles sticking out of the top of shirts look too much like underwear. 50.9%

Shirts or dresses that are gathered around the chest draw too much attention to the bust. 57.1%

Tank tops are generally immodest. 57.6%

Shirts or dresses that are low in the back are immodest, even if the fronts are modest. 58.8%

Shrugs, the short shirts and jackets that just cover the chest, draw too much attention to the bust. 59%

Spaghetti-strap shirts and dresses are immodest. 60.9%

Shirts with a low crisscross in the front draw too much attention to the bust. 61.2%

The same standards of modesty should apply to wedding and bridesmaids’ dresses as to everyday attire. 65.1%

Strapless dresses are immodest. 65.9%

The lacy, lingerie look of some tops is a stumbling block. 66.1%

A camisole is immodest if worn alone. 67.5%

Seeing even an inch of skin between the bottom of a girl’s shirt and her pants is a stumbling block. 71.3%

Halter-tops (shirts or dresses) are immodest. 73.5%

Tube tops are immodest. 85.6%

LAYERING

It is not a stumbling block if a girl’s shirt creeps up, as long as she has a camisole tucked in underneath so that no skin shows. 15.8%

Wearing spaghetti-strap tops over modest shirts is a stumbling block. 24.7%

Seeing a girl take off a pullover (i.e. a shirt that must be pulled over the head) is a stumbling block, even if she is wearing a modest shirt underneath. 37.3%

Wearing a very low shirt (e.g. a shirt with a neckline that reaches the belly button) is a stumbling block, even if a modest shirt is worn underneath. 42%

Wearing a tight shirt under an open button-down shirt or a jacket is immodest. 48.7%

Wearing a semi-transparent shirt over a sleeveless shirt (e.g. camisole, tank top, etc.) is immodest. 52.8%

PANTS/SHORTS/LEGGINGS

It is immodest for a girl to expose her calves (i.e. knee downward). 6.8%

Jeans are generally immodest, even if they aren’t tight. 14.4%

Nude colored nylons are a stumbling block. 14.5%

Wearing nylons is more modest than having bare legs, regardless of the length of the skirt or dress. 24.1%

Wearing short skirts or mini skirts over jeans is a stumbling block. 27.4%

Skirts are more modest than pants (even loose fitting pants). 28.6%

Any shorts that are shorter than knee-length are immodest. 34.2%

Tights with designs (e.g. polka dots or stripes) draw too much attention to the legs. 38.8%

Decorative stitching and designs on the back pockets of jeans draw too much attention to the rear. 44%

Jeans with worn marks across the bottom, on the thighs, etc. are a stumbling block. 47.6%

It is immodest for a girl to expose her legs up to mid-thigh. 64.5%

Miniskirts, long shirts, or short dresses over leggings are a stumbling block. 64.9%

Fishnet stockings are a stumbling block. 66.8%

Skin-tight jeans are a stumbling block. 76.2%

Any shorts that are shorter than mid-thigh are immodest. 83.8%

Wearing pants with words across the backside is a stumbling block. 84.3%

SKIRTS

Sparkly, shiny skirts are a stumbling block, regardless of length. 9%

Skirts with slits are immodest. 29.1%

An ankle-length skirt with a knee-high slit is more modest than a knee-length skirt. 31.6%

Form-fitting skirts are a stumbling block, regardless of length. 32%

Seeing a girl’s slip through the slit in her skirt is a stumbling block. 34.3%

A skirt that is tight around the hips, but loose below the hips, is a stumbling block, regardless of length. 36.8%

Skirts made out of many layers of semi-transparent material to form an opaque skirt are a stumbling block, regardless of length. 38%

Full skirts are more modest than narrow skirts. 48.1%

Skirts that fall above the knee are immodest. 58.3%

Slits that go above the knee are immodest. 71.8%

Miniskirts are immodest. 93.1%

POSTURE/MOVEMENT

It is a stumbling block for a girl wearing pants to sit cross-legged (i.e. Indian style). 14.3%

It is a stumbling block to see a girl lying down, even if she’s just hanging out on the floor or on a couch with her friends. 22.5%

Lifting a long skirt any higher than the knee in order to step over something is a stumbling block. 47.4%

It is a stumbling block for a girl to sit with her legs spread apart. 51.3%

Seeing a girl stretching (e.g. arching the back, reaching the arms back, and sticking out the chest) is a stumbling block. 56.8%

A girl bending over and exposing her lower back is a stumbling block. 63.6%

The way a girl walks can be a stumbling block. 74.9%

A girl’s physical posture and/or position can be a stumbling block. 84.7%

MAKEUP/JEWELRY/HAIR/SHOES

Necklaces that create a “V” are a stumbling block. 14.8%

Playing with jewelry, such as a necklace, is a stumbling block. 18.6%

Anklets draw too much attention to the legs. 23.2%

High-heeled shoes (2″ or higher) are a stumbling block. 24.5%

Putting lip-gloss on in front of a guy is a stumbling block. 27%

High-heeled black boots are a stumbling block. 29.3%

Wearing heavy perfume is a stumbling block. 32%

High-heeled shoes cause girls to walk in a suggestive way. 35.8%

Wearing heavy makeup is a stumbling block. 37%

Shoes with straps that lace all the way up to mid/upper-calf are a stumbling block. 40.6%

A purse with the strap diagonally across the chest draws too much attention to the bust. 47.5% (yes your purse strap is immodest!)

ARE YOU AS EXHAUSTED AS I AM?

And before you say well some of those statements are only approved by less than 10% of the 1600 guys who replied, remember that is still 160 dudes!

I have a query in to the creators of the survey as to denominational demographics of the men (aged 12-50+) who participated. I have not received a response as of yet. You can read all the available demographic information here: http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/overview

The Modesty Survey grew out of The Rebelution website’s gender segregated chatrooms. The Rebelution was created by Alex and Brett Harris of “Do Hard Things” fame. Their older brother is known for writing “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” and their father was one of the catalysts behind the modern homeschooling movement.

The folks behind The Modesty Survey describe it this way on their website:

The Modesty Survey was not intended to serve as a scientific measurement of what the average man thinks about modesty. In the strictest sense, it isn’t a survey, but a discussion between Christian guys and girls who care about modesty. Over 200 Christian girls submitted their questions. In less than twenty days, over 1,600 Christian guys (12 and up) responded. Close to 200,000 separate pieces of data were collected, including 25,000 text responses.

After presenting women with all of this they are kind enough to say that the ultimate responsibility for lust lies with men…Oh good. Thanks for making that clear.

Let’s get these girls in school!

Today is my 44th birthday and I would like to see if together we can send 44 girls to school for the year.

I am hoping you all will help me.

For each year, a girl stays in school, her future income can increase by 15-25%.
Girls with secondary schooling on average have 2.2 fewer, yet healthier children.
If 10% more girls attend school, a country’s GDP increases an average of 3%.

For $52 you can send a girl to school for a whole year. That is only $1 a week.

Come on, let’s change the world for the better this year!

I am starting by paying for one and my church is also paying for one. that only leaves 42 to go.

Click this link to get started. http://gifts.rescue.org/product/education/year-school

When you are done please leave a comment on this post and we can all keep track as we approach our goal together!

What if you came with me?

A Facebook friend posted a status today that said, something to the effect of, “Sometimes you just have to trust that evildoers (I believe he actually said wrongdoers) will get it in the end or you would go insane.” (paraphrased)

This is a sentiment I have heard over and over my whole life. Every time someone does something ranging from merely inconveniently bad (stealing our wallet/phone/car, et al.) that we can’t do anything about to the flat out horrifically evil (the Castro brothers of Cleveland, Ohio) that we can’t think of a punishment awful enough for, we say something like it. We like to think that God‘s punishment will be worse than anything we could dream up. We say things like,

“Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.”

“He/she will get their’s in the end.”

“I hope he/she burns in hell.”

But what if there was another option?

What if wrongdoers are in the end made to understand their wrongdoing and then transformed into who they were always meant to be? Wouldn’t that be better? Isn’t that a more satisfying and complete defeat of evil? Is not the love of Christ enough to consume even the vilest offenses of the worst of humankind and transform the evildoer into something beautiful? Who they once were would cease to exist and who they always should have been would be all that remains. Doesn’t that type of justice also account for the wrongs done to that person that contributed to their descent into darkness? Don’t get me wrong, I agree that here and now there must be consequences to evil behavior and there are some acts so heinous they are difficult to even comprehend. I understand that some people cause a legacy of pain so deep that we as humans cannot see a way to redemption. But isn’t that why we are not fit to judge? Is not our love incomplete? As I said in an earlier post,

People always say you should fear his [Jesus] judgement as he will be the judge on the last day. Personally, I think you should be super relieved and overjoyed that he will be your judge. If he is anything like he was on earth (which was the exact representation of who God is), he will find ways to forgive that you cannot even imagine. He will judge with mercy and compassion. This is the man who came to save all. Who died for all. He took the full weight of all the worst the world and humanity has to offer and he absorbed it and he looked it in the face and he pronounced love and forgiveness.

Why does this idea, that the evil could be redeemed and made right, make so many people mad? I think it because most of us hurt so badly for the people (sometimes others, sometimes ourselves) that the evil have wronged that we just don’t see how it is fair for them to receive mercy. Not now; not ever.

Jesus once told a parable about about some workers. He said he told the story to reveal a little bit of what the kingdom of heaven is like. In the story, the owner of a vineyard hires groups of workers throughout the day. In so doing the groups all work different amounts of time. At the end of the day, he pays all the workers the same amount regardless of how long they worked. Some of them get angry, and think they should get more for working longer to which the man in the story says this, “‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ So the last will be first, and the first last.”

I worship a generous God who forgives (thank goodness) when I would not, who loves when I cannot, and died for all regardless of what they had done or would do. He has set about making “all things new” and “restoring all things”, including humanity. Can you imagine a world where (insert the name of your favorite bad person here), instead of growing up to lead people to death, destruction and hatred, grew up to lead people to life, wisdom and love of the other? What if all their gifts had been used in the cause of love instead of hate? Wouldn’t that be a better world? What if in the end God gives us that kind of world? What if he lets us experience that kind of love? What if the people known to be most evil were transformed into who they always should have been? What if swords are really turned to plow shares, what if the lion does lay with the lamb? What if it is like none of us were ever damaged, or hurt or never damaged and hurt another? What if all evil is consumed by good, death is swallowed up by life and we each become who we were always meant to be? What if love wins?

What if as it says in 2 Cor 5 (*see footnote at the bottom of the post), Jesus actually died for ALL? What if God, through Jesus actually was reconciling the WORLD to himself? What if he really isn’t COUNTING THEIR TRESPASSES AGAINST THEM? And what if, what if God actually wants to make his appeal THROUGH US? As far as I can tell from the passage, Jesus, by dying secured victory over sin and death.

My husband pointed out an N.T. Wright quote and response he read online yesterday when he was proofreading my rough draft of this post. I thought it fit right in so I am going to share it.

The Quote:

“This is what happens when people present over-simple stories with an angry God and a loving Jesus, with a God who demands blood and doesn’t much mind whose it is as long as it’s innocent.“ You’d have thought people would notice that this flies in the face of John’s and Paul’s deep-rooted theology of the love of the triune God: not ‘God was so angry with the world that he gave us his son’ but ‘God so loved the world that he gave us his son’. That’s why, when I sing that interesting recent song ‘In Christ alone my hope is found’, and we come to the line, ‘And on the cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied’, I believe it’s more deeply true to sing ‘the love of God was satisfied’.” –N.T. Wright

The Response:

It is not the wrath of the Father against the Son, much less the wrath of God against Himself, that is satisfied on the cross; but the justice of fair-togetherness: God willingly shares in the suffering both of sinners and victims alike. God doesn’t punish Himself, the Father isn’t punishing the Son (and especially not for something someone else did that the Son didn’t do!); but God is sharing in the suffering of punishment.

For sinners, the suffering is punishment. For God, the suffering is love for the sinners. (And abuse by sinners, too, willingly allowed by God. The sacrifice on the cross is a highly complex action. The intention isn’t complex, though: love for everyone, sinner and victim alike. ) –Jason Pratt

I do not claim to know for sure who all will be saved. But as Christine A. Scheller said in her article about Dallas Willard who passed away this week, “A consequence of Willard’s academic honesty is his unwillingness to state who’s in and who’s out spiritually, which bothers critics who worry that he is a universalist. He says he doesn’t believe anyone will be saved except by Jesus, but he adds, “How that works out, probably no one knows.”

I like that. I like to at least consider that there will be more people in on this thing we call redemption than we think.

Perhaps in the future when I am confronted by wrongdoers (as my friend called them), I might change my responses to, “Won’t he/she be surprised in the end?” and mean surprised by forgiveness. Or maybe, “Vengeance (repayment exacted for an injury or wrong) belongs to God” and remember that God tells me not to repay evil with evil. And rather than say, “I hope they burn in hell,” perhaps I will learn to say, “I hope they become who they always should have been.” I’m not there yet. I have a ways to go. What if you came with me?

*For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all,that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

For the love of God (and our neighbor) can we please stop using these 3 phrases?

There are 3 phrases Christians love to use regarding homosexuality that I wish would just go away. They belie our claim to love God and our neighbor (If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. –1 John 4:20-21) You may think I am not being fair by using that verse and you may not even hate your LGBT brothers and sisters but if you know a LGBT person ask him or her whether these phrases communicate love or hate to them.

“I disagree with homosexuality.”

“You Can’t Be Christian and Gay.”

and

“Love the sinner. Hate the sin.”

I disagree with homosexuality

I have seen this phrase or its sibling “I don’t agree with homosexuality” all over the place. Just google it and you’ll see what I mean. This statement makes no sense on several levels. First of all grammatically (I can’t be the only one who sees this). How can one disagree with something that isn’t an idea or a hypothesis or even a theory but actually a factual thing. Homosexuality is a real thing. Saying you disagree with it is like saying you disagree with the sun or the color green. I personally disagree with gravity so I think I will go fly now. I think this is a big disconnect for me. When you try to persuade me that you are indeed correct by starting with “I disagree with homosexuality…” you lose me right away. Saying you disagree with homosexuality sounds like you are either denying it exists at all or that you believe people wake up one day and choose to be attracted to members of the same sex (jut like they woke up one day and chose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex). Can we all please agree that grammatically this is just not the right way to say what you really mean?

The second way in which this phrase is all kinds of jacked up, is Scientifically. That same sex attraction (i.e. homosexuality) exists is a scientific fact. To say you “disagree with homosexuality” is simply a denial of the facts.

I think Mr. Broussard and those who I have seen use this statement fall into two camps. Those who actually believe that homosexuality is a choice and would not exist at all if everyone actually chose to obey God and be heterosexual. They believe the simple fact that a person is attracted to members of the same sex is a sin, period whether they ever act upon those attractions or not and that in a sinless world those attractions would not exist. To take that to its logical extreme no one will be gay in heaven. (Try if you will, to separate yourself from your sexuality if you are straight, can you do it? Isn’t that inherently a part of who you are?) Those in the second camp are the ones who don’t really mean they disagree with homosexuality so much as they disagree with people acting on their attractions, living what they perceive as “the gay lifestyle” (Excellent article by Justin Lee on this.), or legalizing same sex marriage. These folks believe homosexual practice is a sin, like any other sin that can be repented of and forgiven.

Love the sinner. Hate the sin.

Often times these are the folks in the “love the sinner, hate the sin” camp. On the blog, Disoriented. Reoriented., I found this quote regarding LTSHTS:

Further, it is not actually a biblical phrase. To paraphrase Andrew Marin in his video accompaniment to Love Is an Orientation, “There are plenty of places in the Bible where Jesus tells us to love sinners. And there are plenty of places where we are told to hate sin. But nowhere are those concepts put together.” In fact, Jesus’ message to us does not appear to be “love the sinner, hate the sin,” but to “love the sinner and hate our own sin.” Marin quotes Billy Graham: “It is the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, God’s job to judge and my job to love.”)

This camp includes the folks who say gay people do exist but they can’t be Christian unless and until they repent. Chris Broussard falls into this category. This week in his on air rant on ESPN Mr. Broussard said the following:

“If you’re openly living that type of [homosexual] lifestyle, then the Bible says you should know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, that’s a sin,” Broussard said on ESPN show Outside The Lines. “If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality….I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.”

You Can’t Be Christian and Gay

This phrase is patently false and is even contradicted by the people who use it when they then turn around and say well, you can, as long as you repent, and get back on the wagon, like an alcoholic or a liar or a glutton or any other sinner.

Yesterday the Huffington Post reported on an interview Broussard gave on the radio where he did exactly that. He explained his first statement and back pedaled a bit by saying this:

The life of a Christian, Broussard explained, means having to constantly fight temptation. “And if you stumble and fall, then you get back up, you repent and ask God for forgiveness, and you move on,” he said. “I think that applies to homosexuals as well.”

Men who are attracted to other men can still be considered Christian if — and only if — they constantly try to counteract the same-sex attraction, Broussard said. And if they “repent, and they ask for forgiveness, and they keep trying to serve God, and they fall time and time again consistently, I believe that person is a Christian.”

So, Broussard and those who agree with him would have us believe that Jason Collins and any other LGBT persons cannot, by virtue of their gayness (unless they denounce it, deny it and repent), be followers of Jesus. This is because they say these folks are in open rebellion against God. Really? They are? Are you sure?

Folks such as these (and many of my friends) say that the Bible is crystal clear on this topic. (I have written extensively on this topic and the so called “clear” verses. You can read those posts here.) That they just read what the words in their Bible say, that this is what the church has believed and taught for thousands of years and therefore they are right. Here is my question, What about slavery? Do you think the church was wrong about slavery for thousands of years? The Bible says MUCH more in support of slavery than it does in opposition to homosexuality. (Great article called Is Abolition Biblical? by RHE on this topic.) Now maybe you are one of those folks who thinks slavery is ok. (Yes, I am serious. These people exist. Scary, I know. Look… Why Is a Famous Evangelical Defending Slavery?) In which case I am not even sure what to do with you.

For my money these are people who have forgotten the verses that say,

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”
–Matthew 23:13

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
–1Peter 3:18

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
–John 3:17

“Do not judge others, so that God will not judge you, for God will judge you in the same way you judge others, and he will apply to you the same rules you apply to others.Why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye? How dare you say to your brother, “Please, let me take that speck out of your eye,’ when you have a log in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
–Matt 7:1-5

And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
–John 16:8-11

No matter what you believe about homosexuality and whether or not it is a sin, what is clear is that God tells us it is not our job to convict or to judge but it is our job to LOVE. In fact, Jesus says that is our only job. And it NEVER says love includes excluding people from worshiping God.

side note: Some “Christians” have even extended their rejection this week to people who simply tweeted their support of Mr. Collins. Just yesterday, Former Green Bay Packers safety LeRoy Butler was disinvited from speaking at a church in Wisconsin because he had tweeted this, “Congrats to Jason Collins.” Apparently that is all it takes to piss God off in their minds. Butler was disinvited and told that if he removed the tweet, apologized and asked God for forgiveness, he could still come and speak. He refused. Butler, being a class act, refused to reveal the name of the offending church and was issued an apology which blamed some parents in the congregation for complaining about the tweet and thanked him for not revealing their name in the media. He was not however, reinvented to speak. *SIGH*

For me, I will stick with Billy Graham on this one. “It is the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, God’s job to judge and my job to love.” I personally don’t believe same sex attraction is a sin. I don’t believe homosexual relations are a sin. I do believe sex outside of marriage is a sin. That is why I support marriage equality. I think it is good for the individual, good for the family, good for the church and good for society as a whole. Marriage stabilizes families, it encourages commitment, it celebrates sacrificing for each other, giving to each other, loving each other. That is a beautiful thing.

Here is a small list of some prominent gay Christians who you should get to know:

Justin Lee – the founder of the Gay Christian Network (GCN), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that provides resources and support to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians.

Mel White – an American clergyman and author. White was a behind-the-scenes member of the Evangelical Protestant movement through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, writing film and television specials and ghostwriting auto-biographies for televangelists such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Billy Graham. After years of writing for the Christian right, he came out as gay in 1994.

Micah’s Rule – a vocal trio originating from Wilmington, NC. Made up of Alto: Mary Anne Hewett, Baritone: Greg McCaw, and Contralto: Chasity Scott, and singing the very best in inspirational, gospel, southern gospel, black gospel, country, and rock stylings with powerful voices and intricate harmonies. Great article on them here.

Jennifer Knapp – an American-Australian, folk rock, and formerly contemporary Christian musician. She is best known for her first single “Undo Me” from her debut album Kansas (1998), and the song “A Little More” from her Grammy Award-nominated album Lay It Down (2000). The Way I Am (2001), was also nominated for a Grammy.

Ray Boltz – a singer-songwriter who first came to wide notice in contemporary Christian music. Many of his songs tell stories of faith and inspiration. Boltz was raised by his parents William and Ruth Boltz, and was married to his wife Carol Boltz for over 30 years. They have four children. He came out in 2008.

Gene Robinson – an American retired bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Robinson was elected bishop coadjutor in 2003 and succeeded as diocesan bishop in March 2004. Before becoming bishop, he served as Canon to the Ordinary to the VIII Bishop of New Hampshire. Robinson is widely known for being the first priest in an openly gay relationship to be consecrated a bishop in a major Christian denomination believing in the historic episcopate.

Response

Have you seen this meme? It has just hit facebook and is all up in my feed. Here is my response…

Yes, I am a follower of Jesus.
I believe the truth contained in the Bible and in THE TRUTH who is Jesus Christ.
I support my homosexual friends and their right to marry the person they love.
Yes, I love all people.
Yes, I am still friends with people who disagree with me.
No, I am not judging you.
Yes, I am trying to persuade you to love like Jesus.
Yes, I will stand up for your right to free exercise of your beliefs as long as they don’t infringe on someone else’s right to practice theirs.

I will never call you a name but I will point out where your practice lacks grace, mercy and compassion. I will not remain silent as you say that I do not respect the scriptures or that I do not believe “the truth”. I will not remain silent when people God loves are being told they are not welcome in his family. I fully support your right to speak what you believe, and I will continue to speak what I believe.

* Due to demand I turned this into a meme of my own which you will find below. Please feel free to share it.

The Bible trumps the law of the United States?

I heard a conservative radio personality say this yesterday when I turned the dial to am to hear the traffic report. Wait? Whaaaaat???

Now if you are a Christian and I know many of you are, this may sound like a no brainer to you. “Of course the Bible supersedes the law of the United States! Or any country. And it should!”, you say. Well, I respectfully say, it absolutely should not. Before you go spray painting a big ol’ H for heretic on my chest, hear me out…

I do not worship the Bible. I worship the living God. The Bible is here to make known Jesus, and Jesus makes known the Father. The Holy Spirit convicts me of my sin and righteousness and teaches me (among many other things). When you tell me that the Bible supersedes the law of the United States, and that we should strive and work to make “what the Bible says” law. I start breaking out in hives. I mean, as my husband so eloquently asked this morning, “My question to you is, whose interpretation of “the bible and the Word of God” should “trump the laws of this country”? David Koresh’s? Pat Robertson’s? Mine? Yours? And how would this actually work? Congress passes a law, and then we appeal to the Supreme Court because we feel it conflicts with the “bible and the Word of God”? Please explain how you feel this is workable.” Or maybe would we need to set up some sort of Christian Sanhedrin or Sharia Court to hear such matters?

Are your sirens going off yet?

Believe me this isn’t just about gay marriage. It is about some citizens wanting other citizens to be forced to comply to something they feel is “biblical”. I have several problems with this.

Since when do even all Christians agree on what is and is not “biblical” (see Rachel Held Evans take here: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/17/my-take-the-danger-of-calling-behavior-biblical/ )
When did Jesus ever say, “Hey guys, let’s force the Romans to do this stuff too! Let’s overthrow this government and put my face on the money!!” ???? Oh wait, he didn’t.
When did Jesus ever force anyone to do his will? or even obey his commandments?
In fact weren’t his harshest words reserved for religious leaders who shut the door in other people’s faces, practiced institutionalized hypocrisy and forced people to carry burdens they would never lift themselves?
Wasn’t our country founded by people who didn’t want to be told what they had to believe or to be forced to worship in a certain way? Weren’t they fleeing places with nationalized religions?
Theocracies are dangerous. My belief is that there will only be one perfect theocracy and Jesus will sit on that throne. No human is fit to rule in his place.
In America we embrace the principles of liberty and justice FOR ALL regardless of religion or race or gender. I am fond of saying it is either liberty and justice for all or it is liberty and justice for none.
There is no unless in the above statements, it doesn’t say…God loves you unless you are not a Christian or God loves you, unless you are gay. Additionally, our pledge of allegiance does not say liberty and justice for all (except gays or except blacks or accept women). It says, with liberty and justice FOR ALL.

After all my lovelies, people have used the Bible to justify all kinds of things I (and I am guessing most of you) find unacceptable today (Slavery, women as property and all manner of other abuses come to mind). The cause du jour for our time happens to be marriage equality. People are fond of saying, “I just believe what the Bible says. It is crystal clear” or they use phrases like “traditional marriage” . Let’s explore those statements through the following graphics:

Many of my Christian friends think that “redefining marriage” will somehow tarnish marriage and make God angry. Listen, my marriage is holy because Kent and I choose to have God in the center of it. It is not made unholy by some other heterosexual couple being married who do not choose to have God at the center of theirs nor by any homosexual couple who do not. (or by others divorce or infidelity or abuse etc. etc.) Incidentally, I neglected to mention a second ago, the Christian LGBT couples who choose to have God at the center of their relationships. A dizzying prospect? Here, sit down my lovelies, I will get you a cold glass of water.

A homosexual couple (or other “sinful” couple) marrying only affects one marriage, their own. This is the United States. We allow all types of people to get married for all types of reasons who commit all types of sins (I do not believe homosexuality is a sin incidentally), we recognize the marriages of all faith traditions, including non-christians! Gasp!! I just don’t see how or why free people do not understand this concept.

In Galations 5 it says, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Why, in God’s name, do people want to keep themselves or others under or put themselves or others back under a yoke of slavery when they have been set free? In the U.S we embrace the idea that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness“. Neither God (he gives us all free will) nor the U.S. Constitution gives you the right to deny these pursuits to your neighbor. You don’t have to agree with someone in the United States to afford them equal rights. Heck our country was built on that premise and that is why eventually this will prevail IMHO. As my Friend Matthew Paul Turner’s Facebook status read yesterday (and I like to think he is right), “Marriage equality will happen. It’s only a matter of time. This country has proven over and over again that it is indeed capable of changing courses, righting wrongs, reversing bad decisions, and siding with freedom, equality and democracy. We’re sometimes slow to get started. We’re sometimes blinded by our ignorance and fear. But we always eventually see the light. And once that light starts to crack through, you can’t keep it from shining. You can try. But you won’t prevail. Because in America, freedom always wins out in the end. It might take us a little longer to get to the finish line. But we will get there. And we will get there together.”

As far as “making God angry” I don’t believe that anymore but you can read all about that in my earlier post Why was God mad in 1927 or Was Jesus enough?

Let me count the 1,138 ways

Yesterday I was asked this question on Facebook by a single, straight, male acquaintance…

Michelle, tell me where I currently have any more freedom than a random gay couple?

Yes straight dude, you do have more freedom than a random gay couple. In honor of DOMA Day and the Supremes, let me count the ways… by the way, there are 1138 of them at the federal level and many more at the state level. Here are a few…

You are more free to marry whom you love and enjoy the same benefits, rights and responsibilities of that union under the law.

Your surviving spouse (since you are a working American) is eligible to receive Social Security payments should you die and you are eligible to receive those payments should you die.

You surviving spouse who is caring for your minor child is also eligible for an additional support payment and vice versa.

Notice…a lesbian couple who contributes an equal amount to Social Security over their lifetime as a married couple would receive drastically unequal benefits, as set forth below.

Family Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits (quoted from http://hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples)

Family #1: Married husband and wife, both are biological parents of the child
- Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
- Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
Family #2: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was the biological parent or adoptive of the child
- Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
- Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
Family #3: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was not the biological parent nor able to adopt child through second-parent adoption
- Not Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
- Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits

Your future spouse’s medical contribution is made pretax. However, an employer’s contribution for a domestic partner’s coverage, is included in the employee’s taxable income as a fringe benefit.

Should you have a child, you would be eligible for an earned income tax credit calculated in part based on the number of qualifying children you have. Gay couples can be disadvantaged by this if the biological parent stays at home or earns less than their partner, since they must file separately the family is ineligible for the adjustment in the EITC and therefore has less income to devote to raising the child.

You are eligible to be recognized as the “head-of-household” for an increased standard deduction which provides you with increased funds to care for your future dependents. Thus, a gay or lesbian parent who supports his or her partner’s child (and who is ineligible in their state to adopt the child) has less income with which to support the child(ren).

If you meet income eligibility requirements you are entitled to a credit against taxes for qualifying children in your household. This provision limits the child tax credit to children who meet the relationship test set forth in the earned income tax provisions, § 32(c)(3)(B) which do not include children of a taxpayer’s domestic partner if they are not related to the taxpayer biologically or through adoption. Again, less cash to help take care of the family.

As pointed out in the aforementioned article from Marriage Equality USA,

All three of these inequities have the effect of penalizing families who choose to have one parent in the work force and the other caring for the children full-time. In addition, they disadvantage such couples and their children by limiting the choice of which parent will be a full-time caregiver. Although similarly situated married couples may choose which parent will fulfill that role without consequence, lesbian and gay couples, as well as other unmarried couples, face negative tax consequences for the same decision.

You may exclude up to $250,000 of profit due to the sale of your personal principal residence from taxable income. If you should get married and file jointly you may exclude up to $500,000 on the sale of your home. Lesbian and gay couples marriages are not recognized by the federal government and therefore cannot file jointly, are therefore taxed unfairly on all gain above $250,000.

Your surviving spouse is exempt from estate taxes transferred from your estate upon your death. For same-sex couples, this exemption is not available, creating another unequal tax.

Your surviving spouse may transfer plan benefits to an IRA or a retirement plan in which he or she is a participant upon inheritance. This is important because it allows your surviving spouse to defer taxation of the proceeds, perhaps even until she is in a lower tax bracket; and because it protects your spouse from being forced to withdraw from an investment program when its value is down. Because gay and lesbian couples are treated the same as strangers under federal tax and pension law, they may not transfer plan benefits without incurring significant penalties, and cannot withdraw funds when they choose.

Jim and Stan have been in a committed relationship for over 15 years. They are registered as domestic partners in Washington, D.C.. They have taken every legal step available to formalize their relationship and protect themselves, legally and financially. Jim participated in his employer’s 401(k) plan, naming Stan as the primary beneficiary. Stan purchased an IRA. While driving to his job, Jim is killed in a car accident. Stan does not have the option to transfer Jim’s 401(k) funds into his existing IRA because, under current law, only a “spouse” may roll over 401(k) and/or inherited IRA upon the death of a plan participant. Stan must then take the entire proceeds of the inherited 401(k) in a lump sum and pay taxes on them immediately (at a much higher rate) rather than rolling it over tax free into his own name as a surviving spouse can do.

You are guaranteed family and medical leave to care for parents, children or your spouse. This law does not provide leave to care for a domestic partner or the domestic partner’s family member.

If you should happen to find a wife who is currently not a U.S. citizen, you are eligible to petition for her to immigrate. (Approximately 75% of the one million green cards or immigrant visas issued each year are granted to family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents). Under current immigration law domestic partners are not eligible to immigrate as family. Thousands of lesbian and gay couples are forced to separate under this law or live in constant fear of deportation. In some cases, they even face prosecution by INS. Fifteen countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom recognize lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of immigration.

According to the Government Accountability Office Report, marital status affects over 270 provisions dealing with current and retired federal employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges. Under current law, domestic partners of federal employees are excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (Which you and your spouse would be eligible for). Although married couples are eligible for reimbursement for expenses, expenses incurred by a domestic partner are not. As of August 2003, nine states and the District of Columbia and 322 local governments offer health benefits to the domestic partners of their public employees, while the federal government does not.

You and your future spouse are eligible for COBRA benefits. An increasing number of employers, including 198 of the Fortune 500, now offer their employees domestic partner benefits. However, the Federal COBRA law does not require employers to provide extended coverage for domestic partners like it does married couples. Under 29 U.S.C. § 1167, an employer is only required to offer continuation coverage to the employee and to “qualified beneficiaries,” which are defined as the employee’s spouse and dependent children, regardless of whether the employee’s original benefits plan covered other people (read their domestic partner). Because of the narrow definition of “spouse” under federal law, employees are not guaranteed continued coverage for their domestic partners.

There is one more thing I would like to point out. DOMA defines marriage as: “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and spouse as: ” a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife”. In her post today entitled, “One Man, One Woman”… Really?, Anya Cordell discusses how this definition breaks down when discussing the reality of human sexuality.

Yes, there are those who apparently neatly fit in these two categories; those with the requisite anatomies, who do not chafe at being the gender with which they are identified.

But overarching laws, policies, practices, and customs should be fair and just for all, not just for a proportion of a population. Such justice is what law is designed to protect.

The fact is, biologically and scientifically, that gender identity exists on a continuum, which is imprecise and indefinable, as opposed to two perfectly distinct categories into which every human can be assigned, and the discussion can be shut down…

We must, therefore, question this notion that “man” and “woman” are perfectly valid legal designations for humans, any more than configuration or color are allowed — any longer — to classify anyone as not fully, legally, human.

Why does not this issue, alone, put an end to the discussion of marriage equality, under the law, and even under religious institutions? Should religions blithely dismiss a percentage of humans, (those who are intersex, as the clearest example), from having the rights to love another, and form the bonds of family life? When religions make decrees and proclamations in terms of “male” and “female”, it is inconvenient when gender is not clear cut, but mustn’t the essential question, “Who is human?”, override “Who is a man or a woman?” If religions cannot grapple with such an appropriate question, then how valid can we hold such religions? (Convention alone cannot hold sway; science pushed even religions to eventually acknowledge the world is not flat; the sun does not revolve around the earth.)

I know for some of you this is making your heads explode right now. That’s okay. I get it. But as long as I have breath in me I hope I will have the courage to speak for the outlier as Jesus did. And when you read the feedback I received from a new friend today on Facebook I hope you will know why I continue.

Thank you for your blog today…my dear friend Janine (name changed to protect privacy) turned me onto you…I am a gay man of faith who wasted too much of his life hiding in fear and though I’m out of the closet now, I live every day with the consequences of having hidden who God made me to be for so long.

I am particularly struck by your stance on the gay marriage issue given you don’t have a gay loved one in your life that you’re advocating for…even my own family, who claim to support who I am, don’t speak out on these issues…you truly epitomize what it means to be Christ-like.

So today thanks to you, I am not just a gay man of faith but a GRATEFUL gay man of faith.

ADDENDUM: The above doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface by the way. These are just the legalities. When was the last time you were threatened or harassed simply because you were on a date with a member of the opposite sex? When was the last time you were denied service because you were straight? When were you last told God hated you because of something you had no choice in? When did you get passed over for a promotion or a job because you were straight? Just some food for thought…

This video is a bonus and brought tears to my eyes. I hope you enjoy it.

Love is not silent.

I was asked this weekend why I felt I needed to be an advocate for the homosexual community. Why me? I am not a lesbian after all. I have no close gay relatives. Why do I feel like I need to be the one who speaks out about worship equality (Yes, I made that up and remember you heard it here first) and marriage equality.

[Since I just made up a term I suppose I should define it for you. Here we go. Worship equality is the radical notion that God created us equal, that we each bear in us the image of God, and that we can and should all (regardless of gender or orientation) be welcomed to worship him with all our heart, soul mind and strength and that we should be encouraged to love people (our neighbors), all people as we love ourselves. This encompasses the radical notion that women are people and are equal in every way to men (notice equal DOES NOT SAY the same in every way, I am not the same as my husband just as I am not the same as any woman) and also that our LGBT brothers and sisters are equal to their straight counterparts in the eyes of God and therefore in our own.]

My friend also asked me what exactly it is that I am advocating and how I could be for marriage equality both in the public sector and as a Christian when (as he said) the Bible clearly calls all gay sex sin. My answer is simple. Politically, I am for marriage equality because anything else violates the equal protection clause. As an American and as a Christian I believe in an individual’s freedom and therefore I will not support legislation against marriage equality (indeed I will advocate for it to be overturned). Also, when people want to make laws against something purely because they believe it is biblical or Christian I always ask, who’s version of the Bible shall we base the laws on? May I wear pants? May I drink alcohol? May I dance? May I eat shell fish? Of course the answer is really always (when you get down to brass tacks) the version of Christianity that person espouses (things really get sticky if you ask if people of other faith traditions, should they become the majority, start making Christians follow Sharia?). This is America. We are not truly free, unless we are all free. I would like to humbly suggest we remember that our forefathers and mothers wanted religious freedom. They did NOT want the government to tell them which religion to practice or how to practice it. You are free to believe what you will. You are just not free to force others to live by your convictions (incidentally this means they also are not free to force you to practice theirs.

As far as the Christian side goes. My answer is also simple. I believe that all the “so called” clobber passages (if they are even talking about homosexual relations) can be categorized in one of three ways or a combination thereof: idol worship, prostitution and/or pedophilia. I have already done extensive writing on all of these passages in my Homosexuality & God series from last year. I hope you will take a few minutes out to read these as it may, at the minimum, give you some food for thought. (I have come back and put this in bold because I have people asking my scriptural basis for my statements and I realized they were missing this link as they read. I hope this helps.)

Now my friend is like many Christians I know personally. He falls into the camp that says we should always love everyone God puts into our lives as completely as possible as God has equipped us gay or straight. He knows many LGBT people both privately and professionally and he treats them all with dignity and respect. He does however believe (at least currently) that the act of homosexual sex, no matter the context, is always sin. He also understands that he and I differ on this point. What he doesn’t get is why I feel the need to be an advocate. He wonders what it is that makes me write these posts and to have conversations in which I try to persuade people to my perspective. I will tell you what I told him. What if there were no advocates? Nothing would change. Without William Wilberforce or someone like him there would still be slave ships sailing legally, families being split apart and human beings who bear the very image of God being sold at auction to the highest bidder. LEGALLY. Without advocates, from outside an oppressed group it is much easier for the status quo to roll on decade after decade and century after century. Why do I advocate? How can I not? How can I be silent? Martin Luther King Jr. said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.” Throughout history everyday people have stood up and cried out,

“THIS MUST STOP!”

William Wilberforce, Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony, Harvey Milk, Oscar Schindler: You can still hear them if you listen closely. Their voices can still be heard in every human heart that cries out for freedom and justice. Bob Dylan has an amazing song called What Good Am I in which he says, “If I shut myself off, so I can’t hear you cry…What good Am I?” What good Am I indeed? How can it be love if I stand silent when I could have spoken?

So today again I raise my voice and join their sad and beautiful and victorious song. Their song that still plays on

So today I say to gender inequality, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to marriage inequality, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to bullying, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to use of words like, “fag”, “retard” and “slut” to insult people and dehumanize them, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to female genital mutilation, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to the killing of babies just for being female, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to rape culture, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to human trafficking, “THIS MUST STOP!”

Why do I speak, because silence is deadly.

Margaret Cho said in her poignant response to Michelle Shocked’s tirade, “…the effect of someone saying “God hates fags” can never be underestimated either. It’s a license to kill. It’s a death sentence, It’s not funny. It’s not OK…there is this idea that it is OK to kill us, that it doesn’t matter if we die.” You see, when people are dehumanized (women, LGBT or otherwise); when people believe that someone is hated by an “all loving God” then it becomes okay for them to be spat on, beaten, bullied and even killed.

I simply must not be silent. I cannot stop. I am not naïve. I know there is only so much I can do with my little soapbox. But it is WHAT I CAN DO. And so I do it. I stand with Jennifer Knapp when she said in her article today entitled, Acknowledging Faith Voices Crucial for LGBT Civil Rights,

“…now we recognize that silence is too easily confused with consent for injustice.”

And I will tell you this, when I receive a letter that says, I was rejected by my church and my parents I thought God rejected me too. I thought I was disqualified from having a relationship with God. I was told God hates me. Because of you, I now know that God does love me and that he still wants me; how can I stop?

This is what I was made to do. I don’t know what else to do on this day but stand on the side of love and tell you that God has gay children and he loves them. And to hatred and bigotry I say, “This MUST stop!”

Before The Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage, An American Change Of Heart

INTERVIEW: Rob Bell on Why He Supports Gay Marriage

Acknowledging Faith Voices Crucial for LGBT Civil Rights by Jennifer Knapp

http://godlessliberals.com/Pix/liz-feldman-gay-lunch.html

“All right, then, I’ll go to hell” – Rachel Held Evans

Is abolition “biblical”? – Rachel Held Evans

FROM MY BLOG:

Coming Out of the Church Closet: Bethany’s Story

Pray Away the Gay

Who Can Withhold the Water?

The True Magic Kingdom

WHAT IS TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE ANYWAY?