They say that one of the flaws of religion is, if you can believe one thing on faith without evidence, you can believe other things on faith without evidence. I can't help thinking this person was...
I sent out a pastoral letter to my congregation, further explaining my intention to live true to my gender identity, and I included a photo of myself as the nonbinary person I am, dressed in my clerical collar, a black pleated skirt, my favorite dangly cross earrings, and my favorite sandals — with my carefully pedicured toenails. What could go wrong?
They say that one of the flaws of religion is, if you can believe one thing on faith without evidence, you can believe other things on faith without evidence. I can't help thinking this person was awfully naïve in thinking that their congregation would accept them.
Meanwhile, other parishioners were angry that my coming out had caused a problem at all — they felt that the open and inclusive public image the church projected had been exposed as a lie.
Well, yes. People are still people. Putting people into a supposedly accepting church won't make them accept everything. They find a religion and a god that confirms their pre-existing opinions, rather than changing themselves to suit their religion. If someone doesn't accept transgender people, no amount of preaching is going to change that.
the incredible and breathtaking diversity of God’s self-expression in Her creatures
"Her creatures"? Their church obviously has a twisted version of Christian doctrine: God is a father in Christianity, not a mother. This confirms my impression that there's a lot of mental gymnastics and double-think going on in this person's mind, in order to bend Christianity to make themself feel accepted.
This person needs to give up the delusion that Christianity accepts people like them and the rest of us.
I can't help but agree about the naive optimism required to expose one's inner queer life in a place like Iowa. There's an aspect of psychological dysfunction in this story, a continuing search...
I can't help but agree about the naive optimism required to expose one's inner queer life in a place like Iowa. There's an aspect of psychological dysfunction in this story, a continuing search for an audience that loves Baum unconditionally, in the guise of bringing enlightenment.
It's not wrong to want a church which preaches a message of love, to practice according to its principles. But most of the religiously-raised atheists of my acquaintance got there because of that distance between theory and practice. As you indicated, through choice of religion, people select the image of deity which makes them feel most comfortable and affirmed, not necessarily the one which compels them to consider deeply the meaning and effect of their morality.
I'm grateful that Baum shared the story, wish them well, and also hope they get the opportunity to embrace the life implied by:
“We can only convey to our children their eternal and unconditional belovedness to the degree that we believe it about ourselves.”
Meanwhile, it's better to encourage the abandonment of nonsensical theologies that can't accommodate humans as they actually exist.
But don't we all want to be loved, or at least accepted, for who we are? I don't think there's a problem in this aspect of their journey. I just think it's strange to expect to get that acceptance...
There's an aspect of psychological dysfunction in this story, a continuing search for an audience that loves Baum unconditionally,
But don't we all want to be loved, or at least accepted, for who we are? I don't think there's a problem in this aspect of their journey. I just think it's strange to expect to get that acceptance as a genderfluid person from people in a religion that has very strict moral teachings about marriage and sexuality. It's like joining PETA and expecting them to accept you while you eat your steak dinners.
The author seems delusional. You're part of a religion which goes heavily against the entire LGBT+ movement, and expect to be treated well when you try to break out of that very narrow ruleset the...
The author seems delusional. You're part of a religion which goes heavily against the entire LGBT+ movement, and expect to be treated well when you try to break out of that very narrow ruleset the church provides? What could go wrong?
I'm not arguing against change or anything like that. But one does have to wonder where the person thought this was going to go and how useful a construct like a religion is, if it denies you your will to live as you wish. Why would you still support that?
They say that one of the flaws of religion is, if you can believe one thing on faith without evidence, you can believe other things on faith without evidence. I can't help thinking this person was awfully naïve in thinking that their congregation would accept them.
Well, yes. People are still people. Putting people into a supposedly accepting church won't make them accept everything. They find a religion and a god that confirms their pre-existing opinions, rather than changing themselves to suit their religion. If someone doesn't accept transgender people, no amount of preaching is going to change that.
"Her creatures"? Their church obviously has a twisted version of Christian doctrine: God is a father in Christianity, not a mother. This confirms my impression that there's a lot of mental gymnastics and double-think going on in this person's mind, in order to bend Christianity to make themself feel accepted.
This person needs to give up the delusion that Christianity accepts people like them and the rest of us.
I can't help but agree about the naive optimism required to expose one's inner queer life in a place like Iowa. There's an aspect of psychological dysfunction in this story, a continuing search for an audience that loves Baum unconditionally, in the guise of bringing enlightenment.
It's not wrong to want a church which preaches a message of love, to practice according to its principles. But most of the religiously-raised atheists of my acquaintance got there because of that distance between theory and practice. As you indicated, through choice of religion, people select the image of deity which makes them feel most comfortable and affirmed, not necessarily the one which compels them to consider deeply the meaning and effect of their morality.
I'm grateful that Baum shared the story, wish them well, and also hope they get the opportunity to embrace the life implied by:
Meanwhile, it's better to encourage the abandonment of nonsensical theologies that can't accommodate humans as they actually exist.
But don't we all want to be loved, or at least accepted, for who we are? I don't think there's a problem in this aspect of their journey. I just think it's strange to expect to get that acceptance as a genderfluid person from people in a religion that has very strict moral teachings about marriage and sexuality. It's like joining PETA and expecting them to accept you while you eat your steak dinners.
The author seems delusional. You're part of a religion which goes heavily against the entire LGBT+ movement, and expect to be treated well when you try to break out of that very narrow ruleset the church provides? What could go wrong?
I'm not arguing against change or anything like that. But one does have to wonder where the person thought this was going to go and how useful a construct like a religion is, if it denies you your will to live as you wish. Why would you still support that?