#i always used to think of prioritizing those things for myself as selfish and irresponsible

[thepoisonroom]

'I flirted with the idea that instead of being trans that I was just a cross-dresser (a quirk, I thought, that could be quietly folded into an otherwise average life) and that my dysphoria was sexual in nature, and sexual only. And if my feelings were only sexual, then, I wondered, perhaps I wasn’t actually trans.

I had read about a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen, by a Northwestern University professor who believed that transwomen who were attracted to women were really confused fetishists, they wanted to be women to satisfy an autogynephilia. And though I first read about this book in the context of its debunkment and disparagement, I thought about the electricity of slipping on those tights, zipping up those boots, and a stream of guilt followed. Maybe this professor was right, and maybe I was only a fetishist. Not trans, just a misguided boy.

About a year later, on the Internet, I come across a transwoman who added a unique message to the crowd refuting this professor. Oh, I wish I remember who this woman was, and I wish even more that I could do better than paraphrase her, but I remember her saying something like this: “Well, of course I feel sexy putting on women’s clothing and having a woman’s body. If you feel comfortable in your body for the first time, won’t that probably mean it’ll be the first time you feel comfortable, too, with delighting in your body as a sexual thing?”'

-Casey Plett, Consciousness

[sepublic]

King and Lilith's Similarities

           Another thing I love about King is that, as a rather stark contrast to his cuddly appearance and demeanor… He’s arguably the member of the main trio who is the darkest, in terms of how far he’ll go to be selfish, to hold onto what he does have, or to get what he wants?

           I think the thing about King is that his issues of dependency are the worst, not just because he’s the most insecure of the main trio… But I also think he’s the only one of them to have been alone alone, in a sense? Back home, Luz at least had her mother Camila, who while not always the best, was clearly loving and contributed a lot towards Luz being such the kind and open-hearted person she is today! Eda had her sister Lilith as well as that one friend from the Bard Track… And while she WAS alone for a while, she at least had Owlbert and Hooty as companionship!

           But what did King have? We don’t know for sure what his life or backstory was like, but the implication seems to be that, at least for a while… He literally had nobody else prior to Eda! And it’d definitely tie into his issues of loneliness and attachment, and King’s concerns of being abandoned as seen in Really Small Problems… This would’ve likely contributed towards his Napoleon Complex and desire to be seen and heard, to make up for constantly being overlooked! And his desire to have control over others could be a means of keeping them close at all cost…

           Because King is the one who’s gone the farthest to get what he wants. There’s leaving Luz behind to be a famous author, and then that whole mess in Really Small Problems! He IS trying his best, but amidst his more experienced nature with Luz… He really does sometimes come across as, like, a KID who was forced to grow up very quickly? The thing about King is that he’s the most prone of the trio –if not the only one- to be prone towards jealousy! He doesn’t have Eda’s self-confidence or Luz’s unconditional kindness. He’s probably been lonelier than either of them, and unlike the other two, King doesn’t really feel like he has any other talent or power that could help him get through in life…

           …Which, as @fandomfan2000 brilliantly pointed out, is a LOT like Lilith! Both characters feel like they lack talent and skill to make up for their shortcomings. They’re both people who DO legitimately love and care for the people in their life… But they’ll sink to lower depths than anyone else to hold onto what they have, or even get a glimpse of that unattainable dream that they KNOW they’re not good enough to actually get on their own! Lilith and King are both people who will do terrible things, hesitantly or otherwise, under the impression that it won’t last as long, or everybody else has it so good, so why not let themselves have a turn at being happy and selfish for once?

           King takes advantage of Eda’s half-cursed state to take over the Slayground. Lilith curses Eda for what she thinks is only a day (and will merely weaken her magic) to get into the Emperor’s Coven. King accidentally causes Willow and Gus to shrink, after holding onto the potion without necessarily intending to use it, but not getting rid of it either, and decides to briefly benefit from the situation. Lilith did… well, EVERYTHING she did in Agony of a Witch, and then there’s also disregarding Amity’s autonomy and integrity to plant that Power Glyph onto her neck without permission!

          Both King and Lilith, if they feel their singular bond with another being threatened, if they think that other person is going off to leave them… They WILL react negatively to those other friends ‘stealing’ their companion of theirs! Hence Lilith’s dismissal of Luz and King, or King’s negativity towards Willow and Gus! They’ll do it to maintain their sole connection in life, because isn’t it already enough for that other person to be so confident and meaningful, to be able to make friends on their own? Aren’t THEY enough as a friend???

           It’s an almost willful ignorance, a hesitant dismissal of the ones they know and love, because… Look at them, they’re so much more confident than me! They’re always happier, they can make it on their own and recover, with or without me…! I can’t say the same for myself, it’s not really MY fault I was born without the skills or talent they have… Surely it’s not so terrible for me to be selfish just this once? I’m always being left behind and suffering, I have no other CHOICE…!

           …But in the end, King has to admit that he DID have another choice. That his own pain is not at all, even for the slightest bit, justification for prioritizing his own feelings over the others’ in such a blatantly-disregarding way. There’s prioritizing one’s happiness in life, and then there’s hurting the ones you love to get what you want! And while it takes a few decades, Lilith finally also turns around… Because by the end of the day, both characters are also marked by eventual regret that they try to hide, and/or don’t handle productively.

           Perhaps not just by circumstance and process of elimination, King was the one to vouch for Lilith! He was there when she recounted HER side of the story, and a jealousy of Eda’s strength that he feels guilty over is something he can relate to! Obviously there’s also the fact that Lilith hurt him the least of the main trio, not to mention the necessity of having her as an ally and all, but….

           …I think all of King’s prior moments of selfishness and arguable ‘backstabbing’ have led up to this moment. Led up to this moment where he understands Lilith, and thus KNOWS what she means, and can recognize that she’s genuine when she wants to make up for things… Because he’s been in the same place. Obviously he never went as far as Lilith ever did… But that’s also because he had such a loving and reliable support network of friends! Eda’s connection with the main cast is more of a support network than what she and Lilith had with one another as kids, admittedly.

           And I think it’s funny. King is –probably- younger than Lilith, or at least has a more childlike mindset… But he manages to come across as more mature and experienced than her when it comes to these sorts of things! King is a character defined by contrast; He’s cute and fluffy and adorable, but wants to take over the world and open revels in bloodshed and violence! He comes across as sweet and loving but he can also be dark and selfish! At times King is childlike, but there’s also a tragic experience and maturity to him from an implied loneliness in the past…!

           Like, I think I want to see King and Lilith get along more in Season 2, or at least… Sort of bond over the mutual feelings of inadequacy. Of justifying themselves of needing to do the ‘right thing’, but really it’s for their own sake? These two are selfish in a dark way, they’ll resort to terrible things and they have uncomfortable thoughts and feelings in their hearts that they don’t want to acknowledge, but aren’t predisposed towards handling either! I can really imagine King and Lilith seeing themselves in one another… Learning to be more mindful of their own actions after considering what the other does!

           Maybe the two will even learn to open up to one another about their more uncomfortable feelings and the thoughts they aren’t so proud of! But at the same time, these two will make sure to hold one another accountable… Tying back to this idea of contrast, Lilith and King know each other least out of the trio-plus-Lilith, and yet they have the most in common! And in the way of antics, I can imagine King affording himself some smugness over being the one to teach the former Head of the Emperor’s Coven, and Lilith having reservations over listening to this plush toy of a person… But ultimately, there’s a certain bond and kindred connection there that they don’t quite have with the others! Just as each relationship one has with another person is unique and meaningful in its own way, and one wouldn’t necessarily judge or compare the others as being ‘more’ or ‘less’!

           The thing about King and Lilith is… After doing a bad thing and hiding it, they’ll try to work to approach the issue in a way that absolves themselves of the blame without outright admitting to how they caused it; Again, see Really Small Problems, or Lilith cursing Eda! Both King and Lilith will let themselves feel smug and triumphant over what happened, even if they aren’t always proud of it… Because they see themselves as people who’ve had to work smarter than others to get where they were, and do the pragmatic, necessary thing because pride and integrity are a luxury of the powerful and talented! They see themselves as underdogs and define themselves the most by this ‘role’ in life…

          Fitting, given all of the comparisons of King to a dog in the past! Not to mention Lilith and King are both, well, DUMB, dumber than the others in the cast at least! And some of that ‘dumbness’ comes from willful ignorance no less…! And they’ve both had experience enjoying the role of being a teacher and possibly abusing that authority… In particular, I think Lilith and King are the ones most fascinated with the concept of having power over others and using that power a bit irresponsibly, or turning a blind eye to any issues that come with their support of a cruel system! It’s like Lilith is a dark reflection of King… Both are characters who will flex a perceived superiority over the rest and mean it, given the chance! Both view the role of teacher as that of an authority figure.

           They can also be, well, cowards- When King’s antics begin to backfire on him, he quickly runs back to his friends, and with Lilith… Well, there’s her using Luz as a Meat Shield, her relying on the curse and doing it against her vulnerable sister while she’s asleep… King and Lilith aren’t as confident as others and are more likely to buckle in to their own personal fear and anxiety, so it makes sense for them to buckle into fear in general; As seen with Lilith’s less-than-dignified scream when she’s suddenly ambushed by Eda in Sense and Insensitivity! And THAT was a King-centric episode, no less! It’s that common theme of King and Lilith seeing themselves as inherent screw-ups and doubting their own abilities as a result, which leads to them using the abilities of others, just as Lilith has to buy a curse made by someone else instead of casting her own!

           It’s such a fascinating parallel that I’d really never considered, and again, I feel somewhat personally-beholden to @fandomfan2000 for this BRILLIANT comparison! I know I’ve compared Eda to Lilith in the past, and Lilith to Luz… But I think in the end, she might actually have the most in common with King, the more I think of it? Maybe I’m just caught in the high of this revelation, but it really makes me think about how the parallels between Luz, Eda, and King, with Amity, Lilith, and Kikimora/Belos… It’s not just a one-way parallel, that these connections can also cross overas well! Eda and Amity are talented, Lilith and Luz are more like ‘underdogs’… Belos and Luz could have parallels amist the ones they already have, and King and Kiki are both tiny little gremlins!

           These parallels are arguably interchangeable, and it’s fascinating to me! These characters overlap in a lot of ways, it’s not that they’re connected to THIS one person… It really contributes to this idea of everyone being inter-connected, almost like a community or unusual family of sorts! And it makes room for a lot of fascinating, alternative pairings that one wouldn’t consider, as well as connections and possibly precedents in-universe to compare with others and speculate upon!

           And, it makes me wonder if we’ve gotten the parallels wrong all this time… If it’s actually Lilith-King, Luz-Belos… And if so, how do Eda, Amity, Kikimora, and Hooty factor into all of this? Or if it’s not REALLY that simple as one person is connected to another, in the end, because these characters don’t fit into neat little roles, they’re still their own people irrespective of that and allowed to form other bonds and connections as well! King can’t keep Luz to himself, he has to acknowledge that she has her own friendships…

          Just as Lilith must do the same with Eda! And by having these other relationships and shared connections with others instead of just THE one, it allows these characters to be truly fulfilled, because unless the one friend they have is a complete and total clone of them… There are others who will relate to them more on other facets of personality! And that ultimately ties back into the idea of people who are independent actually forming more meaningful bonds with others than those who are just dependent! That it allows people to form more of an identity, then just their single relationship with this particular individual!

[randommusersmusings]

Childfree CAN be freeing: A Response to a Response

“'Childfree' may not be as freeing as it sounds”. The name of the article by a mother named Tamara that I accidentally stumbled on, browsing Google with my free (of children) time. The article was meant to be a reply, of sorts, to the Guardian's “Childfree Women” series. I rolled my eyes. Here we go, I thought. Another person who thinks being childfree is an attack on mothers everywhere. Another argument to birth children we don't want to have. Another rebuttal to our reasonings, fears, and wants, trying to strip it all away until we reach the conclusion that we can now just go ahead and start making babies, and you're welcome, by the way, for making up your mind for you. Maybe it's not that bad though, I thought. Besides, it's fair for her to voice how she feels. I clicked on the article. “I wonder where they've put all the articles that make the case for having kids,” it began. I clicked off the article. I'm not subjecting myself to that, I thought. But curiosity killed the cat, as they say, and I have to imagine it's that same curiosity that led to me crawling right back to that article. Still reading, still trying to make sense of it. Where are the articles for having kids? Well, let's see if I can answer that.

“...talks about opting out of having kids for a number of purposes, most of which struck me as excuses rather than really good reasons”. Did... I miss something? Pray tell what is a “good reason” to not want kids? Who do we report to, and do we need a note from our doctors? In any case, one of the reasons (or “excuses”) was the overpopulation of the planet and climate change, and fear of exacerbating both issues by adding more children to it. Tamara's argument was that one can simply counter their offspring's existence by donating to charities and organizations that battle climate change. There's a few things wrong with that. Number 1: we still just don't want kids. Number 2: she's assuming we have money. If we don't have money to spend on children then how do we have money to spend on charities? Now on the other hand, we do have enough wealth and resources on the planet to feed everyone, and to maintain ourselves and any children we see fit to bring into this world. If we only spread the wealth and share the resources. Ah. There's the catch, we're doing exactly the opposite of that. Families are still living in poverty in... everywhere, while the rich get richer. Families already struggle in a world where one medical emergency can shoot a family far down the poverty well, then take the ladder away.

“...also talks about kids being difficult and costly, but isn't anything worthwhile the same”. Not always, actually, but for the sake of argument let's say sure. Not only can I now refer back to my previous point (we have no money) but I'll raise Tamara the problems that can come with wanting to do all the things you find worthwhile. Where is everyone going to get all the money they need to provide a good living situation for their kids and also, say, go to college? Not only would that be incredibly costly in terms of our money, but also in our time. It can be done, sure, but it's hard, and only gets harder the less money, time, and overall privilege we have. If your spouse isn't supportive, if your have a job, if you have no one to watch your kids during the day, if you have no car, need to bus it, and be back in time to make dinner—the list goes on. It can be so, so hard to be able to do everything you want to do with a tight budget, and the time and demands can simply be too much for the person trying to do them. It can be done, we've seen it before, but there's a reason those stories stand out. It's because they don't happen often. So if a uterus-bearer decides they want to prioritize their education and/or career over having children, then more power to them, I say. It's a fair choice for many in a world where's it's near impossible to have it all.

“...insists...it is not selfish for a woman to decide to never have a child”. It's not. “...But I can say that having children does involve selflessness”. Well...in theory, yes. Sadly not always in practice, though. But do continue. “A woman’s body changes for her child, her mind changes for her child; every moment is affected by the existence of that child”. We know. That's what we're trying to avoid. “I, for one, think personal growth involves being more selfless, and if having kids helps with that, then great”. Well sure, unless we don't want to actually raise a kid. I'm sorry but what's so difficult to understand about that? One can grow as a person without forcing a child to come along as a crutch to help one deal with their emotional baggage, thank you. In fact, I would argue it's much more beneficial to do whatever you need to do (therapy, medication, anything) to help manage your struggles, and then bring a child into the world if you see fit. For many people, dealing with their issues as well as their child's issues can hinder their personal growth, rather than help it. Not everyone seems to want to hear this, but children don't “fix” a parent's problems and they don't “fix” the parent. Managing problems is so personal to each individual, and it's frankly dangerous and irresponsible to tell them having a child will help with their personal growth. That's just not always the case.

“Sources please? I don't hear women being told that their only value is domestic”. Well Tamara isn't listening enough, then. Here's the thing about getting sources on something like this: it's awfully hard to do. The problem is it's not something that we have proof of just laying under couch cushions like loose change. It's an attitude, an idea, ingrained into society. In the way we talk, in our attitudes, our assumptions. How often do we hear about the lazy stay at home mom trope? Now if this has never been an issue for Tamara, then great! No seriously, that's good to hear, because that's how it should be! But the problem is, that's not everyone's experience, and it isn't the norm, either. Society has this unspoken assumption that a woman is going to stay home, take care of house and kids, and split precisely zero of these responsibilities with her husband, whom she also takes care of. Children assumed to be female at birth are pretty much trained to take care of the house and the men in it once they're old enough to stand. How many families leave the menfolk to watch football or drink a beer and talk while the women (including children) cook, clean up, and otherwise serve the men, before they are allowed to enjoy themselves, too? Don't ever try to tell me that women and feminized people aren't valued for their domestic contributions more-so than men, and that there's no pressure on them to prioritize that over everything else. Just don't.

Now, this next point...it made me angry, I won't lie. The author recounts how a couple of women writing in didn't want to have children, as their families were alcoholics and neither wanted to pass on their addictive genes. To that: “Having a loved one who has struggled with addiction and has now been in recovery for many years, I see that the lessons he can pass on to his kids – whether they have addictive personalities or not – are so, so valuable. He is more the inspiring person for the difficulties he has been through and overcome, and he is evidence of the good that can come out of suffering”. I...how dare she? How dare she diminish those women's experiences like that? Listen, I'm glad her loved one is doing well, okay? I am. But I'm sure he would be heartbroken to watch any of his kids go through what he did, knowing how hard it was for him. Also, to be frank, not everyone does overcome those struggles. Not having experience with addictions myself, I'm reluctant to talk too much about this. I haven't seen or lived with this. But please, if you read how someone grew up with parents struggling with addiction, and talking about not wanting to pass that struggle on to their own kids, don't counter with “A world devoid of suffering doesn't help kids –teaching them how to move on from it is what counts”. It's tone-deaf, dismissive, and sickening.

“Yes, there are burdens associated with being a parent”. We still know that. We still want to avoid those. “But there is also the freedom of choosing to love, choosing to live for others...to be less self-seeking”. Oh my God. Choosing to love? Excuse you? Is this that “you don't know real love until you have children” thing? Do I, She Without Children, actually hate my parents, my pets, and my brother, because I don't have the love of a child? Man I hate that argument. It's truly pointless. Many childfree people are perfectly capable of feeling love, as is...any human being out there, really. Also, “choosing to live for others” doesn't necessarily have to mean bringing kids into the world. If one wants to one can adopt a kid already here and waiting for a good home. One can volunteer at or donate clothing and food to a homeless shelter. One can donate to charities, if you have the funds to. Adopt a pet from a shelter. There are so many ways someone can make other's lives richer, and procreating isn't the be all end all to that selflessness. Which again, doesn't always happen. “If you ask me, there’s still a very strong case for motherhood”. There is, and that's if you actually want to have children.

Well. There we have it. “I wonder where they've put all the articles that make the case for having kids”. Do I have an answer? I think I do. Go and read her article. I'll wait. Back? Good. Now, in that whole article, the tone implies that people with a uterus definitely want to have kids. Like the default is just “you want kids”. Of course you do. What do you mean you don't? Why don't you want kids? There it is. When women and feminized people don't want kids, that's an attitude that's outside of the norm society has imposed on us. We don't want kids, so now we have to argue out way through an invisible judge and jury to give us permission to feel that way. The pro-motherhood sentiment is already all around us, in societal pressures, in the media we consume, in our medical practices. Uterus-bearers are often turned down for medical sterilization on the grounds that they “might change their minds”, or worse, their husbands might want kids. This line has been used on people who aren't even married. Our bodies are already forbidden from being ours on the grounds they belong to men. Sometimes hypothetical men we haven't met yet! That's why it's time, finally, to give childfree people the platform we need to let our voices be heard. To explain something that we should be able to say in five words: “I just don't want to”. So instead of counter-pointing and arguing and trying to get people to change their minds about deeply personal decisions about their own bodies, just stop, and try listening to us instead.

[gracewithducks]

Bigger Barns (Luke 12:13-21; preached 8/4/19)

When I meet with couples before their wedding, we have lots of discussions. We have the obvious ones, of course, about processionals and flowers and bible readings and vows… and I always enjoy hearing each couple’s story of how they met. But I also like to make sure that each couple is having the important conversations not just about their wedding but about their marriage: do you want to have kids, and where do you see yourself in fifty years, and – one of my favorite questions: are you a spender or a saver?

 And if no one has ever asked you that question, take a minute to think about it today: are you a saver, or a spender? If you had some extra cash – what would you do with it? What would you want to do with it: splurge with it, spend it on an impulse buy, or put it away for a rainy day? Are you the kind of person who goes into the store and comes out with way more things than are on your list? Or are you the kind of person with debt repayment charts and savings goals hanging on the fridge?

 These days, when so many of us are just caught trying to make ends meet, saving for the future can feel impossible. The average US family has only $5000 saved for retirement, and less than a third of us have enough money to cover an unexpected $1000 expense.[1] One broken appliance, broken car, broken bone, and we’re in a downward spiral of bills and debt that’s almost impossible to escape. In fact, almost all of my couples get the same advice from me: go home, make a budget, and start a retirement fund. Make the choices today that will take you where you hope to go.

 It’s good sound advice, important advice… at least, I’ve always thought so. But then Jesus goes and says things like, “When you pray, say, ‘Give us our daily bread’” and “Don’t store up treasures on earth” and “Don’t worry about everyday life – whether you will have enough food and drink, or clothes to wear… Look at the birds… Consider at the lilies of the field… Don’t worry about tomorrow.”

And he tells stories like the one we heard this morning: don’t worry about your inheritance, he says. And don’t build bigger barns to store your grain and goods for the future; you fool, you could die tonight, and what a waste that would be!

 Jesus would be a terrible financial planner.

Does he really mean that we shouldn’t save for the future? Is Jesus really telling us not to think about tomorrow, not to worry or plan for what the future will bring? Because I daresay the world needs a lot more people who worry about the future, not fewer; the world needs more of us to think beyond today. Just look at all the mess we’ve made when we don’t think about what the future holds: the average person in the US is carrying almost $40,000 in personal debt – not including any mortgages,[2] and sure, some of that debt comes from education or from true emergencies, but a lot of it is from splurges; credit makes it easy to give in to impulse buys, and sooner or later, we pay the price – and then some. When it comes to our health, too, we too often hurt ourselves tomorrow by choosing what feels good today. Overeating, fast-food and convenience meals, substance abuse, too much drinking, ignoring warning signs, reckless behavior, neglecting precautions and protective gear, even working too much and carrying too much anxiety – so many of the things we do today open the door to problems in the years too come.

On a larger scale, our economy is still reeling from the effects of the rich people who want to get richer by making a quick profit today without thinking about what will happen or who will get hurt when the bubble pops. It happens in the housing market; it happens in the stock market; it happens whenever CEOs give themselves bonuses while refusing to pay workers enough to survive. Our leaders fire off inflammatory remarks and prioritize the rights of weapons and corporations over human lives and try to distance themselves from the harvest of violence that follows. And of course there’s the fact that we find ourselves in a global climate crisis that’s getting worse with every day’s news; communities are being destroyed, lives are being lost from heat and flooding and fire and famine and drought, entire nations may be uninhabitable in a matter of years – and those with the power to do something refuse, because it’s more profitable for them to let the world burn.

 And Jesus says, “Don’t worry about the future.” Really? “You might die tonight, so you might as well eat, drink, and be merry today.” What?

 That’s terrible advice. Truly terrible. And that’s a horribly short-sighted and selfish way to live. Sure, there are days when we need to put down the anxiety and the worry we carry, when we need to trust that God is with us, and we don’t have to carry all the weight of the world. Sometimes the pendulum swings too far in the other direction, and we are so consumed with our worry and fear about the future that we fail to recognize the gift that is here and now, today. Sometimes we need to be still, and know that God is still God – and we are not. Sometimes we need to breathe, just breathe, to heed Jesus’ invitation: “Come to me, you who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.”

 Absolutely. God is present with us, in this moment, offering us peace, a chance to just breathe and be. We need to remember to be where we are, so that we don’t let our life just pass us by, unlived.

 But we also need balance. If we always only live in this moment, if we never think about tomorrow, sooner or later we will reap a terrible harvest, and we will regret selling our future selves short for a quick and easy buzz today.

By all appearances, then, the man in Jesus’ story does everything right. He’s industrious, successful, a man who plans for the future and saves for a rainy day… and Jesus calls him a fool. You fool! he says; forget tomorrow, because you’re going to die tonight. And we can certainly twist this parable and use Jesus’ words as an excuse to “Eat, drink, and be merry,” to be lazy, selfish, greedy and short-sighted. But lazy, selfish, greedy and short-sighted isn’t usually Jesus’ style. So maybe once again we’ve missed the point.

 Maybe this parable isn’t a story about fiscal irresponsibility; maybe Jesus isn’t saying forget about tomorrow and just live it up today. Maybe instead Jesus is reminding us that we will all die one day, so we need to live like our lives really matter. And Jesus reminds us that we really do have a responsibility to use our resources wisely – but using our resources wisely means we have to think beyond our own future and ourselves. I’m not just responsible for my own needs and my own future, but I am responsible to the others to whom I am connected, to those who will follow after me, and ultimately, I am responsible to God.

What is it, that’s really important in our lives? What is your life about? Is it about storing up stockpiles of treasures for yourself – or is our life, our legacy, about something bigger, something more?

 Let’s look again at the story that Jesus tells. “The land of a rich man produced abundantly.” Did you hear that? The land of a rich man produced abundantly. The rich man didn’t work hard; his land did. And sure, it’s the rich man’s land… but who do you think is actually doing the work? Who tilled the soil? Who planted to seeds? Who fertilized and watered and pulled weeds? Who is it who brought the harvest in? I highly doubt the rich landowner was the one with soil underneath his nails and sweat on his brow. Even if he was out in the fields, he wasn’t the only one. This record-breaking crop wasn’t produced by one rich man alone.

 But we hear nothing of the rest of the people in the story. The workers, the laborers, all those whose lives are intertwined with the rich man’s prosperity – even his family – are all invisible, silent, completely missing from the story. The rich man looks out at his abundance, and this is what he does: “He thought to himself, “What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?... I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul: relax, eat, drink, be merry.”

 Did you hear it? “What should I do with my crops? I will pull down my barns and build bigger ones, so I can store all my grain and my goods, and I will say to my soul: relax and be merry.” This entire conversation is about himself; he’s even talking to himself about all the plans he’s going to make.

 I, I, I. I, me, mine.

 This man sees no one else: not his family, his community, his workers, any of the people to whom he’s connected, whose future and welfare are intertwined with his own. He just can’t see anyone else at all.

 Here is a man who is already rich: a man who owns his own land, land that is fertile, that produces enough abundance to provide for this man and his family and for the workers and their families, and there is still enough to store up in barns for the future. This is a man who is already rich, comfortable, whose life and future are secure. But he can’t see it: all he can say is I, me, mine; more, more, more. I don’t know if this man will ever have enough to be content – if he could ever reach that magical future day he dreams of, when he can say: it’s enough; rest, relax, and enjoy. I doubt it. I know people too well; I know myself. And I’m sure, even if he got to build his bigger barns, do you know what would happen? This man would want more land, more grain, and even bigger barns – and even more grain, and more, bigger barns still… until he has so much that it just rots before he can begin to use it all. And he still wouldn’t be satisfied. All his abundance, all he wealth, would never be enough.

 I, me, mine. Selfish and greedy and short-sighted life is the opposite of kingdom living. When you’re blessed with more than you need, you don’t build bigger barns – you build a bigger table.[3] You look around and see who can share the feast with you… because you know: it’s not all about me. Whether you’re a spender or a saver isn’t as important as whether you’re selfish or generous; the real question is: do we look beyond ourselves? What is your life really about?

 If you died tonight, what legacy would you leave behind? Has your life looked like the rich man’s life? – stockpiling and hoarding and thinking only of yourself? Or does your life look more like Christ – giving more than you take, sharing, offering grace and valuing community? What is your life about? What is it that’s worth living and dying for?

 Jesus tells this story in response to two siblings who are fighting over their inheritance. And their fight is full of accusations and blame: “Lord, he is being greedy; make him share with me.” But Jesus says, You’re missing the point. Look around. You’re already rich; you’re already blessed. Family is worth more than money; your legacy is more important than your inheritance, and life is about so much more than just accumulating things.

So what does it look like for us to live in community, to live with generosity and leave a legacy of grace? Simply put, we are called to look beyond ourselves, to think beyond our own needs, to aim for more than simply securing our own comfort and future. Kingdom living means we share and we care for one another. It means recognizing that we didn’t get where we are alone, but we are connected with others – seen and unseen – whose work and whose labor and intertwined with our own… and also realizing that that connection, our legacy, continues even after our death. The choices we make shape the world we will leave behind. What will happen when we’re gone? Will we leave barns full of grain that rotted while our neighbors starved? Will we leave storage units full of spiders and mold and mice? Or will ours be a legacy of generosity - of people who think not just about our own futures, but the future and wellbeing of the planet and all those other souls who live here, too?

The challenge of Christ comes back to this: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. And how we use what we have, what we’ve been given, says a lot about where our hearts are and what we treasure most. May we invest in people, in connections, and in creation; may ours be a legacy of generous love.

   God, you challenge us to generosity. You call us to live today in such a way that your grace and love will be revealed to us, and to others, not just today but in days and years and generations to come. Give us enough faith to be generous; give us hope for the future, and give us the courage to invest in that future together. In Jesus’ name we pray; amen.

  -------------

The Second Sermon

 There are times when events in the world compel us to say something more. And this is one of those days.

 We woke up this morning to the news of still another mass shooting overnight. Three mass shootings this week. Three. And that’s on top of the many, many other episodes of gun violence that don’t even make our news cycles.

 The words from Jesus’ parable – “You fool; this very night your life will be demanded of you” – they ring very true today. None of us is guaranteed tomorrow. Not one.

 And that awareness makes it even more important for us to live intentionally, with grace and with love, in this day.

 Today we pray for the victims of violence; today we pray for the families whose lives have been shattered, for the survivors whose lives will never, ever be the same, for the legacy of pain and terror that will follow. We pray for all those who chose to stay home today, because nowhere is safe – not festivals or schools or restaurants or movie theaters or churches.

 We pray, but we also commit ourselves to act. That’s how prayer works.

 We commit ourselves to letting our government know that it’s not acceptable to prioritize profits over people, to put the needs of lobbyists ahead of the lives of our neighbors and our children. There is no reason any civilian needs a weapon with the power to kill dozens of people and injure dozens more in just a minute of rapid fire. No reason. None. This is not what our founders imagined. And as for those famous words – that all are created equal, that all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – maybe we should live like we actually believe them, remembering that life comes first. The right to life cannot be limited to our conversations about the unborn. The right to life means we work for food, water, shelter, health care, security and safety for the living – including those who are fleeing violence and devastation and who come here, because as bad as it is here, it’s worse in the places they call home.

 We commit ourselves to advocating for health care, including mental health care, for everyone. We can’t blame violence on “mental health” and pretend that exonerates us while we simultaneously stigmatize mental health care and cut funding and access for doctors and medications and programs that change lives.

 We commit ourselves to speaking up against the hate-filled fear-mongering language that has become commonplace. We cannot let our leaders and our neighbors regularly use language that is racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-Semetic, homophobic and violent, and allow them then to wash their hands of the violence that follows. Words matter. It’s not okay. It’s not.

 Today is all we have. So today we pray. And today we act. This is when we decide what legacy we leave. Do not be silent. For the sake of gunshot survivors in hospital rooms, for the sake of grieving families, for the sake of the victims of the next attack: speak up. Act. Do something.

 Love your neighbor as you love yourself. When we see someone in need of help, we are looking at Christ. May we be people who work for justice, who think and live beyond ourselves. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.

  God, help us to be healers, peacemakers, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We pray today for the communities that have been devastated by gun violence this week. We pray for the families whose loved ones are gone. We pray for the survivors, whose lives have been forever changed. And we don’t just pray, but we commit ourselves to act. Give us the courage and the faithfulness to follow through, for the sake of our own families, our own community, and your beloved children around the world. In Jesus’ name we pray; amen.

-------------

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/13/heres-how-many-americans-have-nothing-at-all-saved-for-retirement.html

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/how-much-debt-americans-have-at-every-age.html

[3] Variations on the statement, “When you have more than you need, you build a bigger table, not a higher fence” have been floating around for the last couple of years; I don’t know who originally said it. However, I acknowledge that my own statement here builds on that foundation, and I’m grateful for the dialogue of the community of faith.