Won’t fascists just go away if we ignore them?

Image result for nazi rally

From Joe Messina, a local Republican Party chairman, in the Santa Clarita Signal:

“Chairman Messina argued that if counter protesters hadn’t shown up in the first place, nothing would have happened and the white supremacist message, which he and his fellow 38th District Republicans strongly oppose, would not have been broadcast on an international level . . . ‘You let those idiots over there go do their thing, leave them alone, don’t give them any attention and they burn themselves out,’ Messina said” (A5).

No, they don’t. They don’t stamp and scream for attention and tucker themselves out unheeded. They’re not toddlers. They’re ideologues. It’s ignorant and shortsighted to suggest that the best strategy is to simply ignore them until they go away.

White supremacists are dedicated to white power. Their “great cause” carries quasi-religious tones. They will no more starve from lack of attention than will ISIS. They imagine their culture, their way of life, and their very bodies are threatened (which is true only insofar as white dominance is threatened and equity is advanced). When you believe you’re threatened this way, do you just quiet down because no one’s paying attention? No: you yell louder.

Fascism will be a danger for as long as the United States exists. As long as there are people frustrated with the political process who are willing to justify violence to get their way, fascism will be a threat. Fascism will be a threat as long as anyone buys the myth of racial superiority.

Evil must be called out for what it is, because evil does not die in the dark. It festers.

 

 

Citation:
Ender, G. and Monterrosa, C. (2017, August 15). SCV reacts to Charlottesville events. The Santa Clarita Valley Signal, pp. A3, A5.
Advertisements

The cost of following Christ

In the church circles I know, it seems that when we talk about “the cost of following Christ,” we mean one of two things:

A) enduring ridicule and ostracism from nonbelievers; or,

B) literal martyrdom

People seem to tend towards one extreme or another. But do we consider anything else on the spectrum between the two?

Following Christ might mean you’re late for a date because you stopped to help someone on the side of the road (and decided not to leave until it was resolved). Showing mercy might mean missing events altogether because of Kingdom business.

Following Christ might mean associating with people you’d rather not: people who make you uncomfortable, whom you’d rather not be seen with, who trigger every prejudice (disguised to you as “reason” or “wisdom”) you have. Visiting “widows and orphans in their distress” might mean embracing people who’d make your friends’ noses wrinkle.

Following Christ might mean passing up opportunities to make money because you have more important things to do. It might mean you can’t buy a home or a new car. It might mean going without new clothes, movies, eating out, smartphones, wifi, or any luxury we’ve come to consider essential to life. It might mean getting funny looks, then concern, then ire even from other Christians who think you’re too extreme: you’re giving too much of your time and money.

Following Christ might mean drawing ridicule from those in power and their clients; then, after ridicule, subversion and even open hostility, because whatever the GOP wants you to think, the powers that rule this world are not friendly to the mission of Christ.

Why do 41% of college students quit? You might be surprised . . .

[8-minute read]

dropoutAre U.S. students quitting college en masse because their unprepared, fragile little minds can’t handle cramming college courses between all-night parties and posting on Instagram? Or because they’re so pampered by their helicopter parents that they can’t function without their caregivers meeting their every need? Or because they’re entitled, spoiled, lazy narcissists whose delicate egos can’t handle less than an A? Actually, despite what TIME Magazine, The Atlantic, Business Insider, the Los Angeles Times, NPR, Psychology Today, Forbes, the New York Post, National Review, The Guardian, and others would claim, all the above is far from the truth.

41% of college students quit without finishing their degree. What’s the biggest reason for this? Believe it or not, it’s because they’re poor—so poor, in fact, that their parents and financial aid packages can’t pay enough to free them from the need to work. These students aren’t working so they can afford iPhones, slick cars, restaurants, travel, and party supplies: these students are working to pay for food and housing for themselves and their families. For many of them, the stress of balancing work and school becomes too much.

So they quit. They work full-time at lower-wage jobs because the landlord and grocery store won’t accept “I have to pay for school” and an IOU. Sure, that bright future of earning more with a college degree looks shiny and promising (though less promising now than previously), but the cost to get there is just too steep.

According to research by Public Agenda (sponsored by the Gates Foundation), just 11% of college dropouts said a “major reason” they quit school was they “didn’t like sitting in class,” and only 14% said it was because “many of the classes were boring” (Johnson 7).

By contrast, 71% of college dropouts said they left school because they “needed to go to work and make money”, and 52% said they “just couldn’t afford the tuition and fees” (ibid.). The same source also found these students “were often assuming responsibilities and financial burdens that traditional full-time college students do not have to shoulder,” such as caring for dependent children and family members (6).

These conclusions are also supported by Dēmos, a public policy research center, which reported, “Surveys of students who have left college without earning a credential routinely cite employment and finances as the main reasons for student departure” (Orozco 1).

The cost of college

Is it truly surprising that the lowest earners can’t afford school, given the enormous increase in college costs?

If we really need a citation to say school’s gotten more expensive, citations are widely available. According to the College Board, inflation-adjusted tuition and fees at public four-year institutions have risen 270% over the last 40 years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that, from 1978 to 2011 (33 years), tuition rose three and a half times more than the Consumer Price Index and the average hourly wage (Clemmons). In contrast, in the 30 years from 1982 to 2012, inflation-adjusted average family income rose only 16% (WhiteHouse.gov). Furthermore, from 1980 to 2000, the ratio of cost of education to income doubled for the lowest-income families, i.e., those most likely to quit college (National Center 5).

Why is school so expensive?

Culprits include administrative costs, regulation, and the rise of the luxury campus:

Administration

According to Paul Campos, law professor and author, the number of administrators in the California State University system grew 221% from 1975 to 2008 (n.p.). And what was the increase in full-time faculty during the same time? Three and a half percent.

Campos goes on: it’s not just the CSU system. “According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.”

Regulation

Colleges and universities are broadly treated as state agencies. In the words of Dr. Lyall, this subjects them to “mandatory participation in state health insurance and pension programs,” and they don’t get to “manage their own capital bonds and building projects” or “their own human resources (hiring and pay) policies” (ibid.). This is repeated by Robert C. Dickeson in a report for the Secretary of Education: “Federal regulations impose additional costs on college budgets . . . as many as 12 different federal agencies impose regulations on colleges, and most of the requirements are neither coordinated nor paid for” (2).

Bureaucracy is inherently inefficient, compounding costs of compliance, not to mention requiring ever-growing administrative staffs to keep up with regulations.

Luxury campuses and athletics

Rudy Fichtenbaum, professor and president of the American Association of University Professors, pins blame for college costs on many universities that “have borrowed millions to build luxury dorms, new dining halls and rock-climbing walls” as well as “[subsidize] intercollegiate athletics” (ibid.). This compounds the regulatory burden as many of these facilities, including healthcare clinics, daycare centers, sports centers, dining halls, and dorms are all subject to their own sets of laws and reporting requirements.

What do we do?

In the face of all these factors, how can we cut the cost of education so our poorer students can stay in school?

Cut administration

Cut administrative staff. Or, in the event university presidents and boards of directors aren’t willing to slash their own salaries and support staff, students will have to take action to pressure their schools to cut costs.

Reduce regulation

State and federal governments need to work with schools to coordinate and reduce regulatory demands, treating them less like state agencies and more like businesses. They should be able to make their own bottom-up decisions on pay, benefits, construction, bonds, and maintenance, rather than contort to top-down regulations.

Take learning online

Massively-open online courses are already giving first-rate professors the opportunity to reach thousands of students at a time. Courses from venues like Coursera, Udacity, edX, StraighterLine, the Saylor Foundation, and Khan Academy provide highly affordable (or even free) channels for students to learn the fundamentals of a given discipline at their own pace. If colleges want to reduce costs and retain students, they should make agreements with these providers to accept their coursework for credit (as hundreds of schools have already done).

Simplify campus and work to learn

Maybe we don’t need more schools with luxury housing and glitzy athletics. Maybe we want more places like the College of the Ozarks, nicknamed “Hard Work U” because students live simply, work on campus, and pay no tuition.

Towards an idea

There is no easy or single answer to the rising problem of college costs, but while it remains, the poorest (as usual) are the ones most affected. While it persists, it’s not an economic problem, it’s a social problem, and if universities and governments want to get serious about the ideals they preach of liberality and equity, they need to get serious about cutting costs of education, even at the expense of tradition, comfort, administrative jobs, and athletics.

Simply put, a school should have willing students, great teachers, and the absolute minimum of everything else. No more luxury campuses, no more administrative bloat, no more fanciest newest everything. The idea of the university is to build the mind: let’s make that the first priority.

 

 

Works Cited

Belkin, Douglas. “How to Get College Tuition under Control: Three economists debate the causes and possible solutions for the high cost of college.” The Wall Street Journal. 2013. <https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324549004579068992834736138&gt; Retrieved 14 Feb 2017.

Campos, Paul. “The Real Reason College Tuition Costs so Much.” The New York Times. 2015. <https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html&gt; Retrieved 10 Feb 2017.

Clemmons, Courtney. “Weighing the Cost and Value of a College Decision.” U.S. Department of Education. 2013. <https://sites.ed.gov/ous/2013/07/weighing-the-cost-and-value-of-a-college-decision/&gt; Retrieved 10 Feb 2017.

College Board. Annual Survey of Colleges. <https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fees-and-room-and-board-over-time-1976-77_2016-17-selected-years&gt; Retrieved 10 Feb 2017.

Dickeson, Robert. 2006. A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, Issue Paper, “Frequently Asked Questions About College Costs.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. <http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/dickeson2.pdf&gt; Retrieved 14 Feb 2017.

Johnson, Jean, et al. With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them: Myths and Realities About Why So Many Students Fail to Finish College. Public Agenda, 2010. <http://www.publicagenda.org/files/theirwholelivesaheadofthem.pdf&gt; Retrieved 10 Feb 2017.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the Affordability of American Higher Education. 2002. <http://www.highereducation.org/reports/losing_ground/affordability_report_final.pdf&gt; Retrieved 14 Feb 2017.

Orozco, Viany, and Nancy Cauthen. Work Less, Study More, and Succeed: How Financial Supports Can Improve Postsecondary Success. Demos, 2009. <http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/WorkLessStudyMore_Demos.pdf&gt; Retrieved 10 Feb 2017.

WhiteHouse.gov. “An affordable college education is a cornerstone of middle class security.” <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/share/college-affordability&gt; Retrieved 10 Feb 2017.

 

[This essay was composed for a scholarship provided by Transtutors]

 

Did you like my essay? Vote for it here!

Why do you want to be a teacher?

I arrived at the desire and determination to be a teacher through a long, winding road of chasing what I thought I wanted and trying new things. 

I first decided to pursue teaching in 2010: when I’d already switched my college major from engineering to counseling to nursing and was looking again for the next thing, I asked how else I could use my talents in science and math to help others and landed (somewhat unenthusiastically) on teaching high school biology.

Over the next year, I took three creative writing courses (just for fun, I thought) and a spring/summer internship teaching science to 1st – 8th grade students at a private school prep program. These experiences not only showed me I was skilled at teaching and writing, but that I loved them. I had always known I loved English but had never pursued it as a major or career, thinking there was no money in it. Now, I decided I didn’t care and transferred to The Master’s College as an English major.

My professors at TMC, especially Grant Horner, exhibited to me the art of great teaching as I’d never seen it before (except in Alene Terzian at COC). From this inspiration and from my ever-deepened love for the field of English came the desire to somehow make a career in this field, but I doubted it was realistically possible.

I think I always knew I wanted to teach, but angling for a full-time professorship seemed impossible, and I was sure teaching high school English would come with a vow of poverty. After graduating in 2013, I worked three different full-time, corporate-ish jobs, searching for ways to apply the skills and talents I’d developed during my time at Master’s. This I found, and in the bargain I learned more than I’d ever thought possible from these fields, but I found no place to put down roots and take on a career.

In summer 2016, I took on a job teaching three SAT test-prep classes in a private program. This was my first time teaching English in a classroom setting (as opposed to tutoring) and I found I loved it. I was teaching high school students essay-writing, grammar, and language arts five days a week, and I loved it. I don’t even find grammar interesting, but I loved teaching it!

Around this time, I began for the first time to seriously consider teaching high school English. I looked at the pay schedules for the Hart District and talked to a few teachers there (including some who’d taught me when I was in high school), and from these I concluded that I actually could support a family in Santa Clarita (if not lavishly) on a teacher’s salary, and that teaching English at a public high school actually would give me scope and freedom to do what I love.

So, here I am: I took plenty long coming round to it, but I love teaching – and, more importantly, I love learning. Perhaps that’s why I love teaching in the first place, because I love learning and want to share its wonder with young minds. I realize there will be many unwilling students, long nights, mountains of papers, shoddy assignments, irate parents, and unpaid hours, and maybe even stress-induced health problems, hostility towards my faith, and unsupportive admins. 

But I’m ready.

lego-movie-i-think

This rather dry word-salad was assembled originally for my application to the teaching credential program at The “One and Only” Master’s University — graduating 2018, whoop whoop!

Instead of spending time with technology, I’d rather . . .

be here (with you). I appear to be here. I’m not: I’m a hologram. I’m everywhere else by my magical screens. I could scream, I’m nowhere.

(c) Thrice

[This was composed for the Technology Addiction Awareness Scholarship, which, sadly, appears to no longer be active. The directions were to complete the statement “Instead of spending time with technology, I’d rather . . . ” in 140 characters or less].

[Shout out to Thrice for their artwork (above) and lyrics: “You’re here / but you’re really / a hologram, here / but half a world away”]

I had a dream: I must master kung fu

Lightning Storm at Beach Over the Atlantic Ocean

I had a dream that said I’m destined to master kung fu. I’m doing it.

I was in a videogame, watching myself, not sure I was controlling my actions. The action climaxed on a tropical beach. The clouds turned crimson and thundered, and from the lightning over the water a giant rubber ducky appeared. This monstrosity shot lightning bolts at me; I found myself dodging at incredible speed with martial mastery. Then I woke up.

So kung fu? Essentially, it’s not a martial art, but “skill gained through long effort and application of prolonged practice” (according to Victor Mair of UPenn).

As a citizen, debater, employee, speaker, and soon-to-be teacher, the skill I’m destined to master is kung fu of the mind.

Here’s how I read the dream: whether real life is illusion (videogame or otherwise), whether I really have agency over my actions, whether this dream was a sign or subconscious gibberish, whatever horrors strange or mundane may come, I must do the best I can with my abilities and circumstances. So I’m learning to ground myself and discern and interpret all things nimbly and skillfully, whatever their source: to engage with information and argument, take it all in, take it apart, critique it, digest, and apply it, whether in the realm of literature, teaching, science, business, or anything — to see the lightning coming, dodge, and (eventually) learn to redirect it back.

I know kung fu. And it will empower everything I do in life, for building my students, others, and myself.

 

This short and somewhat silly (but mostly serious) submission was created for Unigo’s I Have a Dream scholarship.

[Photo cred Kim Seng via Flickr. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 2.0]

Answering ancient questions: what is goodness?

death-of-socrates-cropped

People’ve been asking this question for a long, long, long time. 

About 2,300 years ago, in ancient Greece, a very wise man named Plato recorded many of the words of his master, Socrates. Once, Socrates had a conversation with a priest of the gods, whose name was Euthyphro. Socrates loved to ask people questions about all sorts of things. In this case, he questions Euthyphro on the nature of “piety” or “piousness:” that is, following what the gods command.

The fundamental question becomes: is the pious pious because the gods ordain it, or is the pious some higher standard that the gods adhere to?

This question has come down through history to us like this: is goodness good because God commands it, or is God held by some higher standard of good? Both answers have problems. (more…)

Love came down at Christmas time: why we celebrate


Perhaps the greatest mystery of the faith is this: God gives us no less gift than Himself, through the person of Jesus Christ, facilitated by the work of the Holy Spirit. 

It may be partially understood this way: the greatest gift a good parent can give is themselves. Ultimately, your children don’t want your money, gifts, or any other material thing: they want you. They want your love, time, play, and affirmation. Don’t we see how children simply want to be near mom and dad? To children who are secure in the love of their parents (a desperately rare thing), their parents themselves are the cure for what ails them. 

In much the same way, God’s ultimate answer for a broken world, a world crying out for peace and justice, was not the flame and the sword; it was not to appear in terror and execute the evildoers in one fell stroke; it was not welfare programs or money or food; it was not education, law, or medicine; it was not setting a code for people to live up to, to better themselves by their own willpower. It was Himself. 

It was Himself — the unimaginable, unanticipated thing — God Himself in human form; and not just any human, but a baby boy, born in a stable to a pair of poor peasants in some no-name backcountry, far from the seat of nobility and worldly power, turned away by all and heralded to no one except a few outcasts and foreigners. 

With the poor, oppressed, and lowly

Lived on earth our Savior holy

When a king or president returns to his people or visits a foreign country, he is attended by great pomp and circumstance: soldiers, parades, dignitaries, receptions, lavish gifts, etc. That is the world’s way. That was not God’s way. 

The people of the time were looking forward to a military Messiah, come to ride in victory and cast off the shackles of Rome, come to make Israel great again. What they got instead was a baby: the God-man, the perfect man, destined to die a traitor’s death and rise again so that we could be near Him and become like Him.

That is the greatest Gift of all, and that is what we celebrate at Christmas.

That is why we say “merry Christmas” to total strangers; that is why we put up lights in remembrance of the Light of the World; that is why we bring evergreen trees into our homes to symbolize the eternal life; that is why we deck out in green for peace and life, red for love and the blood of Christ, and white for purity and holiness; that is why we ring the bells and go a-caroling for the music of heaven and choir of angels; that is why we give gifts in remembrance of the greatest Gift of all. 

And our eyes at last shall see Him,

Through His own redeeming love;

For that Child so dear and gentle,

Is our Lord in heaven above:

And He leads His children on,

To the place where He is gone.

So, everyone: merry Christmas!

How to break up and still get along: some tips

Broken heart

Disclaimer #1: I’ll say up front that I can’t claim credit for any of the practices or attitudes I’m going to recommend: all I did was take what others had taught me and applied it.

Disclaimer #2: I am not presenting this as a 10-point guide to a painless breakup. There are no guarantees; these are just things that worked for my former girlfriend and I, and I hope they’ll work for you too.

That said, here’s the short story: about ten months ago, while I was at Dodger Stadium with a lovely young lady I’d been seeing for a few weeks, I asked her to be my girlfriend. Four months ago, as we sat down for coffee, she looked me in the eye and said, “I don’t think we’re going to work out.” When she’d given her reasons, I couldn’t help but agree. We agreed to still be friends, walked out, and that was that.

Today, we’re as amiable as though nothing ever happened, if not more so. Aside from mutually giving some space for the first month or so after the breakup, we haven’t avoided each other; neither of us have quit the Bible study we both attend, glared daggers, or badmouthed each other. We still respect and admire each other.

Nathan, why are you saying this?

The only reason I think anything in this post is worth sharing is because a lot of people have been surprised by this story—surprised that the two of us even still speak to each other, still more remain friends. Some have expressed regret that their own relationships didn’t turn our like this; others have asked me how we did it.

Our friendship is what it is today because of certain attitudes we took into our relationship. We broke up well because we dated well. I hope these will help you too:

1. Our purpose was clear

When I asked her to be my girlfriend and she accepted, we agreed that the reason we were doing was to figure out, over time, with prayer, whether we should get married or not. We understood that this exploration, and no more, was what we were committing to at this stage. We agreed that “success” meant reaching a definite answer, whether that was yes or no. We certainly knew that “no” would be painful, but we also knew that “no” would be much better than saying “yes” when we shouldn’t have.

I really think this is the only good reason to enter this kind of relationship, but if you think differently, at least make sure you’re on the same page as your S.O. Being clear on your purpose will save you from being surprised later.

2. We both knew what we needed

To start with, it wasn’t each other. I’m convinced this is one of the biggest things that stifles relationships (and leads to awful breakups).

We also both knew that we were complete single people in Christ and we didn’t need to find “our better half” or “soul-mate.” We did know, however, that if we were to marry, we would need to agree on:

  • spiritual values
  • family style
  • expected lifestyle
  • careers
  • gender roles

We also both knew that each of our future spouses would need to have strong faith, godly character, and interests we could share. This doesn’t mean we fully articulated all of these to each other at the outset, but we each knew for ourselves and knew we’d discuss them at some point.

3. We both knew what we wanted

And we knew this was different from what we needed. I might have wanted a fellow literati who’d obsess over John Milton and Beowulf with me, but I knew this wasn’t crucial. She might have wanted a man who shared her love for Disney, but she knew it wasn’t a deal-breaker.

The other great things about our wants was that we were both open to them changing. Dating a real person can really make you change what you want (I mean that in a good way).

I’d especially caution: don’t let your “wants” grow into a six-page list that maybe three people on earth could fulfill. At least, if you do that, don’t wonder years later why you’re still single.

4. We weren’t the world to each other

Neither of us staked our hopes, dreams, or self-worth on the other. Six months in, we weren’t writing out our names together or planning our wedding (at least I can vouch I wasn’t). We both had an established identity apart from each other, rooted in Christ.

In this sense, it’s essential not to need each other. If her approval had made the difference between my life being whole or hell, I never could have let go of her. If her self-worth had hung on my affection, she never could have let go of me. If you feel you need someone to complete you, I suggest you read the Gospel of John and pray, because you need an identity, and it has to be much bigger than another person.

5. We knew it wasn’t personal

—in a certain sense. We both knew this relationship was one part experiment, one part adventure to see whether we were a good fit for marriage. There are a lot of factors to that, some of which are always beyond our control. We both knew that, if we weren’t a good fit, it was nothing personal.

This left no room for any bitterness or lasting hurt if one of us broke off the relationship while the other wanted to keep it. We both realized that, if one person doesn’t want it, it’s not a good fit. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) marry someone who doesn’t want to marry you. (If you married someone who wanted to marry you, and they feel they no longer want to be married to you, or vice versa, that’s a completely different issue).

Side-note: if someone breaks up with you because of some character flaw that you have, don’t get mad at them or say that’s not fair. Instead, own it! This is someone you’ve let see into your life in a very intimate way, and now they’re telling you: this is what they’ve seen. Take that seriously and work on it.

6. We committed to honor

We committed to treat one another, by God’s strength and grace, with respect and honor, as members together of Christ’s family. This included being up-front and honest, not false or double-dealing. This included making sure (in time, appropriately) the other person knew things about us that might make them say “no.” This meant not taking advantage of each other. This meant relating with kindness, understanding, and patience.

7. We dated human beings

—as opposed to our idealized, daydream versions of each other. What I mean is that we listened to each other and ditched our preconceived notions of what the other would be. I stress this because, when you’re talking about family and life aspirations with someone you’re thinking of marrying, it’s deceptively easy to hear what you want to hear. Study your significant other and find out who they really are.

This also meant we realized the other person might hurt us. It was a risk we chose to take, and we were ready to meet that with God’s grace, not with bitterness, indignation, or acrimony.

Any breakup is bound to be painful if the relationship meant anything—but hopefully, if your hearts are in the right place, it doesn’t have to be bitter.

For more on dating gracefully and with purpose, I’d highly recommend Lisa Anderson’s The Dating Manifesto: A Drama-Free Plan for Pursuing Marriage with Purpose, as well as The Sacred Search by Gary Thomas.

Are Christians prudes?

Prudery 1 - George Augustus Sala

“Prude” wasn’t always a negative word, but in the last century it’s come to describe someone who seems to feel disgust, revulsion, or fear towards expressions of intimacy.

Synonyms include: prig, prissy, goody-goody, fuddy-duddy, killjoy, moralist, and puritan (ironic, that last one, as the original Puritans definitely enjoyed the good life, but that’s a topic for another time).

The people I’ve most heard called “prudes” are Christians, and that’s why I care about this topic. Some of us who follow Christ may well be prudish (but so are a lot of non-Christians)—but what I want to show you is that Christianity is not prudish.

What I want to show you is that Christianity is chaste, and chastity is a very good thing. In fact, it’s the opposite of prudery, just as love is the opposite of fear.

Chastity isn’t just virginity: chastity is appropriate expression and enjoyment of affection and intimacy. For example, sex with someone who’s not your spouse is utterly unchaste, but nothing is more chaste than sex within marriage.

The difference between chastity and prudery can be confusing, because the two can act very similar. The difference is in the attitude. Prudery tends to be fearful, disgusted, cold, and self-righteous (especially when a prude is priggish). On the other hand, true and God-inspired chastity should be joyful and celebrate intimate affection!

The bottom line is that God invented intimacy, and He thinks it’s a great idea. Like anything else, it has its boundaries—just like water, food, fire, and wine, it has its harmful and helpful uses—but within those guides, it is a wonderful, God-blessed thing, and Christians should treat it as such.

“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure . . . ”

We’ve made room for a lot of lies by treating these words as purely negative—as though “honoring marriage” had only to do with abstinence beforehand.

Marriage should be the one place in all the body of Christ that He shines through most clearly. The Christ-centered union of a son of the King to a daughter of Heaven is one of our clearest pictures of what God Himself is like. To enjoy and celebrate that, for yourself and your spouse and others, is incredibly chaste. Prudery is not part of Christianity, but chastity certainly is.

 

Thanks for reading!

Nathan

 

 

Image credit: “GeorgeAugustusSala1828-1895” by Allister – Flickr: George Augustus Sala (1828-1895). Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Commons – link.
%d bloggers like this: