on sex, or rather, not having sex

First, the warning: Serious adult themes ahead. Be aware.

Next, the disclaimer: This post is about a book I'm reading and how it's changing my approach to sex, or rather, (as per the title) my approach to not having sex. My opinions may not be your opinions and that's okay. I hope we can share a mutual love and respect anyways.

Now, for the good stuff.

Having grown up in the evangelical Christian world, and having spent the previous 4 years at Wheaton College, that bastion of evangelical higher learning, it should not be a surprise that I have decided to save sex for marriage. I have not, however, kissed dating goodbye. I have more or less "frenched dating hello," as the joke at Wheaton went.

Right, so that's part of my life. I chose the abstinence route and have found it empty and dissatisfying. There has to be a better, more consequential, less teenaged way to describe the commitment I am now choosing to make. I'm drawing a line in the sand right now, at age 22. I just don't know what to call either side of the line, and I feel like I need to identify it clearly as I step.

There's your background. Here's the book: Singled Out: Why Celibacy Must Be Reinvented in Today's Church. The co-authors are both unmarried women, one of whom was actually a brilliant professor of mine at Wheaton (for the record, I worked harder but learned more in her classes than any other!).

This book has helped me define either side of my sand line: Abstinence and Celibacy. I don't mean to say this is what the book says. I mean to say this is a personal conviction to which the book has helped me arrive.

It's like this. What is the chorus of abstinence-promoters? "Wait." Which I will do, of course. But that punch line is predicated on the idea that something is coming next. Namely, marriage. And what's a Christian girl to do when marriage comes later than she expected? Or never comes at all?

The answer then, as I see it, is celibacy. Ah, yes, the term previously reserved for ascetics and that most holy calling of marriage to Christ. ONLY NOT. Celibacy is the new abstinence, people! We're talking everybody from Lutherans and Agnostics and Non-denominationalists and Catholics to those rebels who simply counter our sex-crazed culture are jumping on the bandwagon.

Celibacy (and this idea does come from the book) is a personal commitment you make in the face of the general attitude of life around you. Abstinence is an outward statement, i.e. sign your pledge card, and celibacy is a more mature, internal conviction.

The thing about either short-term or long-term celibacy is that it doesn't really have a place in the evangelical church at the moment. That section of the Church universal is mostly family-oriented. Which is fine, except if you're a middle-age single Christian. Then it could be difficult to truly connect with a group of believers who are, by and large, married with kids. Which is why things need to change.

Personally, I want to be counter-cultural. I enjoy bucking the system (she writes, from her flat in the middle of Nigeria on a laptop running on battery because there's no electricity, ignoring her itchy palms that may or may not be a symptom of tapeworm). See? I like bucking the system. And the "system" I've grown up in uses sex as the primary advertising tool.

Wouldn't I just be the worst consumer in the world if a product's sex appeal did not appeal to me because I was not motivated by sex? What a way to mess with economics. What a way to buck the system!

Celibacy is going to change the face of sexual purity. It's a conscious choice I make, not an unfortunate set of circumstances that has befallen me because I am unmarried. Celibacy is more than just waiting for what comes next. It's not waiting at all. You see, the place I am (which one could call "singlehood") actually has something beneficial to teach me, and if I limit myself to just waiting, or am more focused on what comes next, I might just miss the lesson I have to learn right here, right now.

That lesson, it seems, is that as a single Christian woman, I have a divine, integral purpose in the Body of Christ. My sexuality is a God-given part of me, yes, but it does not make me who I am (i.e. single vs. married or virgin vs. sexually active). Whether or not I get married, whether or not I raise children, whether or not I have sex, I am purposed. As I make the transition from abstinence to celibacy, I may slip up: I may lose my focus on the place I am by looking ahead or by "just waiting". But I don't want to lose sight of that bigger calling, ever. As I stand on the Celibacy side of the line, I need the Body of Christ to support me while I support the Body of Christ.

Bottom line: Read the book. Draw a line in the sand. And if you cross over, let me know. You won't be standing alone.

a verse, an image, a thought

I'd like to share an opinion today. Okay, I guess I do that every day, but I'm raiding the secret archives of my brain and sharing something that I've often thought but never spoken.

A fellow blogger recently called Psalm 139 to mind. While the psalm in its entirety is worth a read (and a re-read, for that matter) it is verse 5 specifically that has always stood out to me:

"You hem me in, behind and before. Your hand is on me."

Simply put, I adore this verse. I love that my God is so personally invested in my life: not in a wind-the-watch-sit-back-and-watch-it-tick kind of way, but in the created-me-knows-my-thoughts-his-hand-is-ON-me kind of way.

I've been aware of this verse for a very long time--years, in fact--and it has always conjured up a certain image in my mind. For self-preservation, I have never shared this image with anyone, because it's kind of girly and a little embarrassing, like having an iTunes playlist called Sad Songs that you listen to for a couple days each month. Wait, what? Did I just admit that? Never mind.

I watch a lot of movies, right? Especially here in Nigeria, where I can buy 15 on one disc and not feel bad about watching them ALL because I have to get my money's worth. Romantic comedies are a personal favorite. I mean, I really like action movies, Bogey-and-Hepburn-type movies, and the ones that make me think, but for brainless entertainment, I'll take a corny romantic comedy, extra cheese.

In most of these fluffy favorites, there's a ridiculously overwrought moment in which the female protagonist struggles against the male protagonist. His arms are braced against her shoulders; she may or may not be crying, screaming, and throwing punches. She carries on like this for a while, but invariably, she surrenders herself, tired of struggling, tired of resisting, just flat-out exhausted. And in the moment she decides she can't do it any longer, she lets herself be loved.

Ladies and gents, welcome to verse 5.

This is what I do. I get all stubborn and pushy. I think I can do God's job better than He can. I try to fake Him out. But He knows me. He knows my thoughts while I think them, He knows my words before I say them. So He holds my shoulders while I thrash around and waits for me to tire myself out. Which I do, of course, and then I realize I am literally caught in the most mind-blowing, deep-as-an-ocean, knows-all-my-faults-and-doesn't-care kind of love I will ever know. Exhausted as I am, I just rest in the knowledge that my life is not my own. I am hemmed in, behind and before, by Love that will not let me go.

Amen and amen.

in which the author steps on toes

Get out your steel-toed boots.

No feelings were intended to be harmed in the making of this post.

I generally avoid discussing politics, because in my limited experience, there is no faster way to alienate a portion of one's readership than to bring politics into the fray. While the same cannot always be said for religion, it's along those lines. (Although, when it comes to talking about my faith on this blog, I'm not one to tiptoe. I stomp around here as I please.) Today, I'm breaking my self-imposed rules.

If you're friends with me on Facebook, you'll note that I recently changed the Political Views and Religious Views of the Basic Information section on my profile. I'd like to explain and defend my changes.

Until now, I've left Political Views blank. Mostly because I'm young, and green, and inexperienced, and still "sorting myself out," as my British/Canadian flatmate would say. No use defining myself with labels I find insufficient. I'll choose my own labels, thankyouverymuch.
In the past, I've listed my Religious Views as everything from "Christian" and "Evangelical" to "Micah 6:8" and "I'm in love with this Guy" (that one lasted about 5 minutes).

If we're friends on Facebook (and if we're not, click here), see that my Info tab now reads:

Political Views: Arizona's SB 1070 is wrong.
Religious Views: Faith without works is dead.

(I did tell you to have your steel-toed boots at the ready, yes? Good.)

You see, dear readership which may or may not drop after today, I am convinced that even more than the United States needs health care reform, the Church needs reform, too.

Because here's the problem: My generation--the Millenials--is really really good at pointing out things wrong with society, or government, or Church leadership. What we're not really really good at is expressing how to make those wrong things right. It's like this: "I don't like [fill in the blank]. The whole system sucks. We need a change. [End of discussion.]"

See how nothing was resolved there? It was just a complaint, an open letter to the gods of democracy and big business and nongovernmental organizations to fix what we deem is dysfunctional without offering any suggestions for making [fill in the blank] functional again.

AND I AM PREACHING TO THE CHOIR. See, watch this:

I'm not a big fan of Arizona's SB 1070. Mostly because this bill just made it illegal to drive an undocumented immigrant family to church on Sunday mornings in the state of Arizona. Being caught doing so is met with the risk of being arrested for "transporting or harboring" undocumented immigrants.

I recoil from this with the command of Christ to welcome the stranger. I recall the word of the Lord in Jeremiah 22:3 to the people Israel:

"Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place."

As convinced as I am that SB 1070 is wrong, I have no suggestion to change it. So maybe I ought to just keep my trap shut. But I want you to understand why I think it is wrong, even if I lack the brain power sufficient to make it right. (Hi, Dad.)

In regards to the Religious Views, I find James 2:26 to be a perfect summation of my struggle between faith and works. It's not that I think I can earn my salvation: I'm a terrible person. I am wretched. I am mean-spirited. There is no hope that I can earn my way into heaven. Thus, I am eternally grateful (pun intended) for grace that is bigger than my mistakes.

But I also have a problem with the "once a Christian, always a Christian" doctrine. If your my faith is as life-altering as you I profess it to be, then shouldn't it be backed up by your my actions? Shouldn't there be evidence that you are I am the redeemed child of God you I claim to be?

Don't get me wrong: I'm as sola fide as the next evangelical. It's just that James says that kind of faith (the kind without works) accomplishes nothing, and ultimately, it cannot save you. The idea here is that my works exist not outside of or instead of faith, but because of and alongside my faith.

So you'll forgive me if I have a problem with claiming to "welcome the stranger" and yet making it illegal to drive said stranger to church on Sunday morning.

If your toes are broken, I've got a great Pakistani doctor here in Abuja I can recommend.