Why my boys go to church

I take my boys down to my parents' church nearly every Sunday morning. The little one stays in the nursery, while the older one sits with his grandparents for part of the ceremony, and attends Sunday School for the other part of the ceremony. I park myself over in the other building - the one with the classrooms and the big meeting hall, and usually do a bit of writing on the laptop.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it hardly seems fair to lock the boys into something I'm unwilling to do myself. But, well, they aren't really locked in; the first time one of them expresses a clear desire to stop attending, I'll pull him out. It'll mean giving up one of the few stretches of reliable writing time that I have, and it'll make the grandparents sad, but I'm not keeping them in there if they really object.

And, secondarily, I really do want them to be exposed to Christianity. Which I suspect sounds extraordinarily odd coming from me, so let me try to explain.

It's not about God. As far as I can tell, God doesn't exist; and if He does, I seriously doubt that Christianity presents an accurate picture of Him. Nor is this anything to do with Pascal's Wager. I could be wrong about the existence of God, but if so I'm at least honestly mistaken, and I stand by my conclusions.

No, it really comes down to two things. The first is something that I'm going to call "cultural fluency". (There's probably a better or more formal term for it.) Basically, Christianity is ubiquitous in the modern United States. Attending church will, I hope, give the boys some understanding of the dominant world-view, along with its language and its references - even if they come to disagree with that world-view later on.

The second reason is basically a matter of inoculation. Not against Christianity itself; the boys are going to have to draw their own conclusions there, though I'll be happy enough to share my own views if they want to ask questions. No, here's the thing: religious beliefs can be very compelling, especially if they're presented by the right person at the right time. And some religious beliefs can be very destructive. So I hope that by exposing the boys to what I'd consider "Christianity done right" -- heavy on the grace, light on the guilt -- it will help to inoculate them against the more destructive, authoritarian, manipulative version of religion.

(That's how it works for me, at least; I haven't considered myself a Christian since my teens, but every time I run into someone whose presentation of Christianity focuses on the idea that we are all worthless and evil, I still reflexively think, Wow, you have completely missed the point of the Gospel. So I'm hoping to build a similar response in the boys.)

* * *

Last Sunday, one of the church members was passing by in the hallway, and stopped to compliment me on how sweet and well-behaved the boys are. She was about the sixth person to do this, over the last couple of years. So clearly, a fair chunk of the congregation knows who I am (in fact, quite a few of them remember me from when I was a kid there). Of those people who have stopped to make contact, not one has asked why I don't attend the service myself. Either they genuinely aren't concerned about it, or they figure that it isn't any of their business. Either way, I appreciate it.

That's my parents' church. The church my wife's parents attend is a different denomination, and the congregation is a little more... "aggressively friendly," I guess I'd call it... but it's a similarly laid-back theology, and we've taken the boys there too, from time to time. In both cases, while I don't share the core belief, I can feel secure that I also won't hear anything hateful or judgemental.

From the Search Logs: Religion and the Meaning of Life

So there I was, looking over the analytics for this blog, when I ran across this:

how would atheists respond to religion as a way of finding meaning in their lives

Someone stumbled onto my blog using that as a search string. Since they probably didn't find the sort of answer they were looking for, and since I am by nature always trying to help, here's my answer.

First of all, I can't speak for all atheists - and I wouldn't if I could. It's like trying to speak for all Christians, or all Buddhists; the term encompasses a wide variety of views. But, okay, how would this particular atheist respond to religion as a way for someone to find meaning in their life?

I'd say, "Does it work for you? If so, wonderful."

See, here's the thing: people are different. What works for me, might not work for you - and vice-versa. As an irreligious person, what I mainly want from religious people is acceptance of the fact that I'm not religious - not because I'm angry, in rebellion, or too attached to my sinful ways, but because in a fundamental way, religious belief doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't work for me; I don't seem to be wired for it, if that makes any sense. And if I'm going to ask for that acceptance from religious folks, it only makes sense for me to accept that their religious beliefs work for them, that they make sense to them.

There are, of course, some limits and conditions on my willingness to be accepting. To the extent that your faith helps you personally, and encourages you to right action towards other people, I'm in favor of it. To the extent that your religion encourages you to do things that are harmful to yourself or others, I'm opposed to it. (In most cases, I can't see that it particularly does either one; it's just a part of who that person is.) So if someone is practicing a particularly toxic sort of religion, I'm perfectly willing to try to argue them out of it... but the goal isn't to argue them out of their religious beliefs; it's to argue them out of hurting people. And if you feel like you can't quit hurting people without giving up your religion, then I have to ask if what you have is religion worth keeping.

But as far as being a way of finding meaning in life? Go for it.

A Mixed Bag of Links

I'm brain-dead (mainly because I'm exhausted) so instead of being bright and clever myself, I'm just going to share some things that other people have contributed. 'Cause I'm wild and crazy (or was it "mild and lazy"?) that way.

So, first up: in the general vein of the What Is Normal posts - and, more specifically, in regards to Red Cardigan's apparent inability to understand how anyone could be an atheist - Gravel suggested this link: Another Person's Room. Apparently having an open mind is all about figuring out where other people keep their socks.

A bit later on, I asked for some music suggestions, and emilyperson suggested that I check out The New Pornographers, who (as it turns out) are not pornographic at all, unless maybe travel photos are your particular kink.

I was randomly amused by this graphic: I Hate Taxes.

And, on a related note, author Jane Yolen has apparently incurred some outrage for pointing out that Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) was a tad hypocritical in setting up a photo op where he was reading to some children in a public health clinic. Nothing wrong with reading to kids, of course, but Senator Johnson is calling for serious cuts in funding to public health clinics such as the one he was sitting in, along with libraries (which, y'know, help promote reading), and public education in general.

Finally, this is about six different kinds of awesome:


How about you? What are you doing to keep yourself entertained?

What is Normal: different perspectives

Saw this on Facebook:

Jesus doesn't have a blackberry, but He is my favorite contact. He doesn't have a Facebook but He is my best friend. He doesn't have Twitter, but I follow Him and even though He doesn't have internet, I'm always in communication with HIM!! Post on your profile if this applies to you.

Thing is, I'm sure the person who posted it found it inspiring. To me, it's just... well... creepy. Very, very creepy.

What is Normal: Religion is the Default Setting

I ran into this the other day when I was looking for something vaguely related. Don't bother reading it; it's not very interesting, except for the opening assertion:

"The idea of God exists ever since the beginning of humankind. You go to any part of the world, and you will encounter some form or idea of God. And even though, their views of God may be world apart, it conveys the universal belief in the existence of God."

Because, well... no. That's really not right. And it ties in to something I was starting to say over at Gullible's Travels a couple of months ago, so I guess this is my chance to finally finish expressing that thought.

If there's one thing I learned while getting a Minor in Anthropology, it's that "universal beliefs"... aren't.

"The idea of God exists ever since the beginning of humankind."
No, it hasn't - not the way you mean it, anyway. The idea of God traces back from Christianity and Islam to Judaism, which is to say that it comes from a particular tribe in a particular area of the world. The fact that the concept went viral and is now ubiquitous does not change the fact that it was originally a tribal and parochial view of the divine.

I am neither Jewish nor a religious scholar, so offhand I don't have any good scholarly citations to support this. (If you do, feel free to add them in the comments. Hell, if you've got conflicting citations, feel free to add those in the comments as well.) But my understanding is that early Judaism wasn't even monotheistic in the sense that we think of it today. Instead, they were monolatrous (or henotheistic) - that is, they acknowledged the existence of other gods, but they only worshiped one.

The "idea of God" has a very specific history relating to specific human cultures during specific time periods in specific areas of the world. It isn't something that's always been around.

You go to any part of the world, and you will encounter some form or idea of God.
This one is... not true, but sort of vaguely off in the right direction. What you'll find, actually, is that anywhere there are people there is some sort of religion (also, some form of art). Where it breaks down is the idea that this constitutes "some form or idea of God." It doesn't. It's not even close.

Religion, like Art, is a tricky thing to define. For our purposes here, I'm going to define it as "a belief in the unseen forces that shape our lives."[1] I'm told that people engaged in the study of comparative religions break beliefs down into four or five basic categories: Monotheistic (one deity), Dualistic (two deities), polytheistic (many deities), and pantheistic (the Divine spread through the world) - plus, possibly, shamanic[2], where the Divine exists in specific places, objects, animals, etc. Apparently shamanic religions are sometimes considered a subset of pantheistic religions, though personally I think that's a mistake.

And even though, their views of God may be world apart, it conveys the universal belief in the existence of God.
And again: no. No, it doesn't. There's far, far too much variety for that. In fact, the views you find are so irredeemably far apart, that they don't convey the universal belief in much of anything.

You'd be on far safer ground if you'd said that it conveys the universal belief that objects have their own personalities and deceased ancestors wish to be remembered. Because if you leave people to their own devices, those are the sorts of beliefs they tend to come up with. But again, that's not even remotely universal. Common, yes; universal, no.

From a historical and/or anthropological viewpoint, Christianity - and monotheism in general - is deeply weird. I mean, the transition sort of makes sense: This god is the strongest to We will only worship this god to There is only one real God, and he talks to us. But as compelling a vision of the Divine as that is, there are quite a number of things - and the Problem of Evil is chief among them - that are far easier to explain if you allow for two opposing gods; or for many gods, each with their own area of influence. [3]

So if you're looking through World Religions or religious history for evidence to support the Christian view of God - even among people who haven't directly heard of Him - give up now. It just isn't there.

---

[1] I like this definition because it allows me to include any sort of religious belief or practice that I've ever heard of, but still allows me to exclude atheism.

[2] I'd actually refer to this as animistic rather than shamanic, but that's probably only interesting to people who are curious about how the perspective of Comparative Religion folks differs from the perspective of Anthropology folks. In other words, the only people likely to care... are Sociology Majors.

[3] Which is, I think, a large part of the reason why Christianity goes back and forth on the existence of Satan, how much power he has relative to God, and why God doesn't do anything about it.

What is Normal: From A Guy's Viewpoint vs My Viewpoint

Former Conservative recently posted a dissection of... Okay, let me back up.

There is a young woman who calls herself Miss Raquel. Miss Raquel writes a blog called God's Daughter, which focuses on issues of interest/importance to young people in her particular Christian subculture. Among her regular features is an item called "From a Guy's Viewpoint," in which she sends a questionnaire out to young men, to get their feedback on important issues like love, marriage, and appropriate behavior; and then publishes their responses on her blog.

Former Conservative spent some time talking about why he finds a lot of the responses disturbing, and my reactions are very much in line with his. So rather than looking at the responses, I'd like to talk about the questions themselves.

This is not because I find them terribly disturbing. Miss Raquel comes across as bright, active, and very earnest about her Christianity; the material on her blog (what I've read of it) is not malicious, harmful, or even particularly offensive. At worst, she needs to get out more.

...All of which brings me, roundabout, to the same point I was trying to make with the post about Shakespeare in the Bush. Normality is a social construct, and it's a particularly tenuous and contextual one. It's not that people have trouble understanding the concept of "normal". We seem to be wired for that. It's that everybody has their own idea of what is normal.

I'm sure that most (probably all) of these questions seem, to Miss Raquel, like perfectly reasonable, sensible things to ask. They're normal concerns, in other words. But to someone with a different background... well, to illustrate, let me bring in my sixteen-year-old self as a guest. At sixteen I was still attending church and youth group at an Episcopal church on the north edge of Dallas; I was solitary, but not as isolated as I would be later; and I hadn't been exposed to a lot of the views and ideas that I'd run into in college and the working world.

Also, I was a nerd. Or maybe more of a proto-goth. Either way, not a typical teenager, if there is or ever was such a thing.

So, without further ado, let me introduce Michael at Age Sixteen (MAS).

MAS: Um.

Now, let's set the scene. Michael at Age Sixteen is, I don't know, eating in a fast-food restaurant when he's approached by a Christian Young Woman (CYW) of about his own age.

CYW: Hi there. Mind if I join you?

MAS: {nods warily}
MAS: {looks at seat across from him, looks at CYW}

CYW: Do you mind if I ask you some questions? I'm trying to find out what guys think about, well, a bunch of different things.

MAS: ...Sure. Go ahead. {sets book down}

CYW: Well, let's see. Um, first, what are your thoughts on modesty?

MAS: It's a virtue?

CYW: That's all?

MAS: Pretty much.

CYW: Okay... Some of us feel that we either give too much effort, or not enough, in worrying about the way we dress. What is your suggestion to how you wish girls would dress? What do you like to see girls wearing?

MAS: Um. Whatever works for them, I guess.

CYW: So you don't care?

MAS: Well, I mean, I guess I'd think better of someone who was wearing something practical. And comfortable. Like, if there's an opposite of high heels...

CYW: Oh. How do you feel about girls wearing makeup?

MAS: {shrugs} Seems like kind of a waste of time to me.

CYW: But you wouldn't have a problem with it?

MAS: Are there people who do?

CYW: Some people think it's immodest. Next question: a lot of girls worry about looking chic around guys… but what do you consider pretty?

MAS: Chic? If you're looking for fashion advice, you are asking the wrong guy.

CYW: Yeah, I noticed.

MAS: My fashion sense stops at comfortable and practical. I know people dress in uncomfortable, impractical ways because they think it looks pretty... but I don't see it, and I don't get it.

CYW: How about this: do guys ever notice changes in girls? Hair styles, clothes, etc.?

MAS: Depends.

CYW: "Depends." That's your whole answer?

MAS: Depends on the guy. Depends on the change. Depends on the circumstances. I'm pretty oblivious, but I noticed when one of my classmates showed up with a big strip of her hair shaved, and the rest going six different directions in eight different colors.

CYW: Okay, it depends. Well... What is something that you want/look for, the most, in your future wife?

MAS: {chokes, splutters} What?

CYW: What quality would you look for in your future wife?

MAS: Willingness to marry me?

CYW: Besides that?

MAS: Whaddaya mean, "besides that?" If she isn't... Oh, never mind.

CYW: Maybe we should move to another topic. Do you often feel peer pressure from your friends? In any way, but mostly in the standards that you have set for your life.

MAS: No.

CYW: Never?

MAS: I'll ask you the same thing I asked the guy who tried to lecture me about peer pressure and drugs. {leans forward} What makes you think these people are my peers?

CYW: Okay. Next up... What do you consider flirting and what do you think of a girl when she flirts with you?

MAS: Doesn't happen.

CYW: What?

MAS: It. Doesn't. Happen. Look at me. Look at the way I dress. Girls don't flirt with me. They generally cross to the other side of the street and do their best to avoid eye contact. If a girl ever did, I'd probably think I'd misunderstood what she was doing.[1]

CYW: How do you feel about dating?

MAS: Puzzled.

CYW: ...?

MAS: Too many rituals, too many expectations. I don't... Look, it's not that I wouldn't like to, it's that I have no idea how to go about it.

CYW: So you don't think there's anything wrong with it, except that it's too complicated for you?

MAS: Pretty much. Are we looking for a moral issue, here? 'Cause barring a few things that could happen on dates - but aren't, in themselves, dating - I just don't see one.

CYW: When you’re interested in a girl, do you focus on her family too? Do you make it a point to get to know them as much as you want to get to know her?

MAS: ...

MAS: ...If that ever happens, I'll let you know.

CYW: What is your view on college for girls?

MAS: You mean, like women-only colleges?

CYW: No, I mean women going to college at all.

MAS: I don't think I understand. Is there some reason to think that they shouldn't? Assuming that they want to, and they have passable grades?

CYW: Uh... okay, skip that. How about this: what is your dream job? And why?

MAS: I don't know. Writer, maybe? Or maybe I'll just try a bunch of different things until something feels right.

CYW: What do you think the man’s role is in the home – compared to the woman’s?

MAS: Well, in my family the usual gender roles are kind of reversed. My mom's the reliable breadwinner, and the one who sets the rules. Dad is more touchy-feely and optimistic. And less organized. So... Whatever works?
MAS: As long as it's fair, anyway.

CYW: Fair is good. How many kids would you like to have?

MAS: I honestly can't picture myself being old enough to have kids.[2] But if I did, probably two. Zero population growth, and all that.

CYW: A lot of guys like using sarcasm around girls…do you know why that is?

MAS: Yes. Because they're sarcastic.
MAS: Do you mean sarcasm, or sarcasm?

CYW: What's the difference?

MAS: Whether... It's the difference between clever irony, and being mean. They're both called "sarcasm," but they're very different things. I'm... not comfortable with people being mean, even when it's supposed to be funny.

CYW: Do guys like it when girls are tomboyish or more girlie?

MAS: Tomboyish. Nothing against being girlie, but for me... well, I get interested in people who can keep up with me. Or move ahead of me. But, well, be yourself, you know?

CYW: Is there anything that you would appreciate girls doing differently in order to help you maintain your purity?

MAS: Maintain my what? Oh, you're talking about... Okay, look: purity isn't always the best thing. Laboratory-pure water is nothing you'd want to drink. It's the impurities that give it flavor. Pure iron is strong, but when you add some carbon you get steel - much stronger.
MAS: So what I want, basically, is for girls to be clear about what they want and what they're doing. Guys, too, for that matter. Like I said, I'm kind of oblivious.

CYW: Um, okay, right. Where did you learn about... no, skip that, too. What do you think about guys and girls hugging?

MAS: I'm all in favor of it.

CYW: I... yeah. When do you plan to have your first kiss?

MAS: ...Last year? Sorry, are there people who actually... plan that?

CYW: Okay, we're almost done. How will you respond if God's plan is out of sync with your own?

MAS: Unless God wants to actually, um, drop by and explain His plan, I'm pretty much just planning to muddle through as best I can. I don't think I'd actually know if my plans were out of sync with God's plan for me. And, actually, I get the feeling that he really wants me to work that out on my own. He wants followers, not puppets, you know?

CYW: What do you think of girls posting pictures of guys on their blog?

MAS: ...
MAS: I have no opinion about that.

CYW: Do you guys sometimes get weirded out by being friends with girls?

MAS: You know what's weirding me out? You keep asking questions about what boys-in-general think about this or that regarding girls-in-general. There's no answer for that. Which boy? Which girl? Under what circumstances?
MAS: No, I think guys being friends with girls is pretty normal. A lot of my friends are girls. The boys tend to talk about sports, cars, television... I don't care. The girls have more interesting things to say. At least, the ones I hang out with do.
MAS: {considers}
MAS: Actually, that's true of the guys I hang out with, too.

CYW: Just two more. What is one thing that girls do that you hate?

MAS: {Deadpan:} Arg.
MAS: There's no one thing that girls do. There are specific people who do specific things that I specifically hate, but there's no one thing that girls do. At all, let alone that I hate. Different girls do different things.
MAS: Look, be yourself. Be fair to other people. Be clear about what you want and what you're doing. Is that so hard? And I'm not saying that it's girls who need to do that. It's boys, too. Maybe more so.

CYW: Last question: to what degree should a guy and girl just "be friends"?

MAS: As much as they're both comfortable with. Other than that, as much as they want. I mean, okay, I realize this is focused on gender roles and gender relations, but as Pressing Moral Issues Of Our Times, shouldn't we be more worried about, say, feeding the poor than about who might be boffing whom before marriage?

CYW: Thanks for answering. {leaves the table, goes back to her friends}

MAS: Well, that was odd. {Picks up book and starts reading again.}

CYW: {to her friends} That was weird.

So there's normal for you. I have a better understanding now - at least, I dearly hope so - but back then I would have had no context for the questions. And without that context, I can't really answer them; most of the questions make no sense to me, and the ones that do I would answer incorrectly, because I didn't understand what sort of answers those questions were looking for.

Normal itself may be a universal concept, but what is considered normal... well, that's extremely relative, contextual, personally and socially determined - and as a result, tenuous. And I'm prepared to argue, as I get the time, that anyone who believes that there's a universal standard for "normal" really, really needs to get out more.

'Cause the more you look around, the more you see that it just ain't so.

[1] True story, by the way.

[2] I really couldn't.

What is Normal: Shakespeare in the Bush

Normal is a funny sort of concept. Often, it simply means "the way I do things." Doing things differently - at least, in ways that are perceived to be significantly different - is "crazy."

This is not the definition of "crazy" that covers legitimate mental illnesses. This is the more colloquial, social use of the term. For that matter, this isn't the only (or even the best) use of the term "normal" either. But it is a significant part of the way people look at the world. We judge things by our own experiences, our own behaviors, our own reactions. It's sometimes hard to see why other people would do things differently, or how they could see things differently - especially when our beliefs and conclusions are so glaringly obvious to us. And it's especially hard to imagine that some of those beliefs and conclusions might simply be wrong.

Explaining one's perspective is a surprisingly tricky thing to do.

All of this is a lead-in to exploring how getting a Minor in Anthropology has affected my view of religion. But before we start talking about world religions, I want to emphasize that a lot of what we think of as universal, obvious, and natural is (instead) very frequently provincial, contextual, and relative. And one of the best examples I can think of is Shakespeare in the Bush - an account of an Anthropologist trying to explain Hamlet to the Tiv people of Africa.

Seriously, go read this thing. I promise you'll be enlightened and amused, though possibly not in that order.