Thursday, May 17, 2012

eligibility and spiritual growth

By "eligibility" I mean romantic eligibility. I apologize upfront to readers who aren't interested in the topic, but it's where my thoughts have drifted. Whether stated plainly or not, Christians have suggested that "spiritual growth", i.e. advancing in Christian practices and virtues, increases eligibility. When a devotee loves and pursues God, they're more eligible.

That is ludicrous.

Countless counterexamples are everywhere. The biblical support for this assumption is ambiguous too, especially since the present idea of eligibility isn't applicable to the cultures described, which often treat marriage as a practical matter. Although it certainly can be true that devoted Christians are also quite eligible, it's a blatant mistake to make a general principle out of those fortunate cases.

On the other hand, despite the distinction between the two, spiritual growth can still act as a beneficial support for eligibility. Some vices are repulsive, like cruelty or cheating or gluttony. If eligibility is a continuum, then obvious wickedness places an individual toward the low end. It's uncontroversial among Christians to conclude that a functional relationship with God is more likely to coincide with functional relationships with others. God favors peace and truth in human interactions.

Hence I'll concede that a minimum of spiritual attainment is more or less a requirement for eligibility, just as it's a requirement for fruitful participation in society. But to return to my main point, beyond that minimum, spiritual growth isn't the same as greater eligibility. This observation applies as much to Christians as to unbelievers. Christians value spiritual growth more than unbelievers, and they encourage and applaud it. But their measurements of eligibility are mostly identical. Vibrant Christianity, springing up in disciples like living water, should cause an eligible Christian to be noticeably different from an eligible unbeliever. However, the characteristics that identify the Christian as "eligible" are exactly like those that identify the unbeliever as "eligible".

I don't need to list all these well-known traits of eligibility, but some of the more widespread ones are power, status, appearance, prosperity, personality, talent, intelligence. Christians are being highly misleading when they talk as if spiritual growth necessarily improves the ratings of these traits. I'm sure they have good intentions as they offer this wrong advice. "Get closer to God, and those of the opposite sex will want to join you on that journey." Given my past entries here, my expressed opinion is that spiritual growth is worthwhile regardless of any side-effects, so I could never say that it's detrimental advice. But if the aim is eligibility, its insufficiency is glaring.

Pity the earnest gullible Christians who believe it. What pleases God may simply not be enough to please humanity. The traits of eligibility are not the fruits of the Spirit. A godly soul is wonderful to behold, but it's extremely easy to overlook when it's combined with deficiencies in the traits. People are capable of appreciating subtle virtues. Nevertheless, they frequently won't pay attention unless they're enticed. If I may be blunt (said the anonymous writer), depending on the Christian, fashion tips might be much more productive, for the sake of eligibility, than reading Bible chapters.

It helps nobody to maintain the artifice that eligibility is radically distinct for Christians. Christians of the opposite sex are on the lookout for many of the same traits as unbelievers. We should stop pretending otherwise.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Christian gender laws?

I mentioned the few misguided Christians who rely lazily on their gender as an excuse to indulge in preferred sins or to refuse actions they dislike. But another problem could arise: treating strong distinctions of gender behavior like Christian laws. This practice falls into the general category of mistaking cultural norms for divine norms. It might be expressed, "You can't be a good Christian [woman,man] unless you act like _____."

As I mentioned in the other entry, some cultural gender stereotypes are quite compatible with the life of a devotee...but some aren't, at least when carried to extremes. (I don't necessarily mean extreme in comparison to the standards of the culture itself, which as a whole could be off-kilter.) Moreover, restrictive ideas, interpreted as essential Christian commands, have a terrible side-effect of exclusion from the church gathering. Regardless of whether congregants don't consider it "sinful" to violate unstated gender expectations, social disapproval still communicates the violator's unworthiness.

It may be uncomfortable that people don't always fit in tidy gender-defined boxes. But nobody who calls themselves "Christian" has the right to claim that God made a mistake when He fashioned an unconventional individual.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

one of the worst parodies of Christianity...

...is harassment of sinners. But of course it's fine to have calm, respectful conversation about another person's wrong choices, especially after forming a relationship of trust. Harangues at sinful "targets" are obviously far less effective at communicating the love of God or restoring that person's connection to Him.

Our calling is not to make sinners miserable.