The title to this post is strange. Hang with me, and I think everything will become clearer. Today, when I got up, I found an amazing number of things to blog about. Let me list them, in a sort of "Quick Links" format:

  • My own dear Pittsburgh Presbytery is putting Rev. Janet Edwards on trial for officiating at a lesbian wedding. We all know my position (beginning at Deb 1) on this, after decades of struggle. I'd obviously stand by Rev. Edwards.
  • A little more hopeful is the MSNBC article about Rev. Joe Beam, who's saying married Christians aren't having enough hot sex with their spouses. We'll skip the inability of some Christians to be married, or his position on sex at certain times of the month and just be grateful that he's adding some greatly needed sanity to the discussion.
  • Today's "Dear Prudence," in it's first letter, gives an example of the other extreme. The couple waited for marriage, and the woman decided to just keep waiting. Now, this isn't necessarily a result of the "Just Say No To Any Physical Contact Before Marriage" crowd. I Am Not A Psychologist, but I'd be asking some serious questions about this woman's upbringing, focusing on possible abuse. The thing is, though, a lot of Christians who wait do wind up struggling with the idea that sex is bad, even in marriage. I've joked about my own fear a year or two ago when my father-in-law found out Nancy and I were having sex.1 Yet, when given a chance last year to teach Christians on antidepressants how to cope with the sexual side effects, I chickened out. I didn't want to wind up crucified. Some part of my brain thinks sex is bad. Thank God I mostly ignore it.
  • The whole "sex is bad" thing came up recently over at Dubious Wonder's discussion about "Slut." I don't like the word, simply because the same actions by a man tend to be approved while by a woman they get labeled. But there's also this whole "sex is bad" thing again. And if enjoying sex, being good at it, and experimenting with different things is "slutty," well, someone just insulted my wife, who studied very hard for her Human Sexuality class. I don't take well to my wife being insulted. 2
  • I should not have deleted the comment on this blog where someone objected to Nancy and I having sex because we were supposed to be "mature Christians." Ridiculing mercilessly the person who wrote that would have been fun, although I'm trying to be better than that. Same with the post objecting to Nancy and I holding hands and kissing before marriage. Apparently, we should have just always said "No."
  • Speaking of ridicule, anyone know where I can get my hands on a burka and someone willing to model it? I've got a great idea for a poster [warning: PDF] similar to the one at Pure Freedom.

Ok, so where's this tirade going?

Last night, we handed out contact information to the kids in our chatroom. Mine used my gmail address, which is a mess and happens to include my paramedic con-ed number. Like I said, a mess. Not something easy to remember. I realized I dare not mention my blog to my 7th and 8th graders.

I'm not hiding it because of the copious amounts of profanity on this blog, or all the photos of sexual organs (some of those insect shots had to include sexual organs). For crying out loud, kids in this age group have seen harder pornography than I have. Given that I regularly do medical searches, that frightens me. But that's not why I dare not mention this blog.

I am afraid a parent or someone at the church will find this blog. See, I say what I believe. Ok, so maybe I'll soften it a bit and put some spin on it or explain it in subtle ways to get past watchful dragons. But I say things that are the truth, even if they will get me in trouble. 3

The church I go to is mostly conservative. In the 2004 election, the whole "Christians vote for Bush, because we're selling our soul to the Republican Party" schtick got on my nerves. I'm actually not the most liberal person in the church. But can you imagine what happens to the head of the youth group if someone goes screaming to the head minister with the URL for this blog?

I'm not Hugo Schwyzer. God bless him. It's his youth group; if he wants to get screamed at by the parents, that's his choice. The parents apparently don't; they realize they'd be hard pressed to find someone better than Hugo.

I am not the head of my youth group. Someone else is, someone who is a God-fearing, amazing man whom I admire. I'm just one of the "Adult Leaders," and the term "Leader" is rather misleading. I lead the kids based on what the youth group head tells us to.

Honestly, I should either give up this blog or give up working with the kids. Already, they don't have enough Adult Leaders. If I bail on them, there's that much less influence in the kids lives. For some reason, God has given me a heart to work with these children. Given what's going on lately in our own extended family, I think you can appreciate that I'm not willing to give up on these kids.

I've tried to keep this blog non-controversial. It doesn't work. I can't sit by and let injustice go unchallenged. I mouth off. I should give up UnSpace, maybe come back with some blog that can't possibly be connected to me (like that would work) or just stop blogging altogether.

There is one assumption, though. I'm assuming someone I know will read this blog. I can't even get my wife to read it. Floyd tries to read it occasionally, but he gets too depressed and gives up. Based on my referal logs, I'm not even sure I have any regular readers: mostly it's people looking for spoilers for the Illusionist, the Wicker Man (?!), Inside Man (most popular post ever, bar none!) or black and yellow spiders.

Maybe there's something to be said for being a crawly amphibian. If a blog falls in the blogoverse and no one hears it, does it affect the real world?


  1. We've just celebrated our 23rd wedding anniversary. [back]
  2. She kindly folded over the up-close-and-personal photograph pages of various full-blown STDs in her textbook, for my benefit. Ew. [back]
  3. I told you that if there was a conspiracy involving 9/11, I'd have spilled the beans. [back]