It occurred to me, as I thought about the post I put up last week as a response to Tullian Tchividjian’s Jesus + Nothing = Everything that a reader might come away with a negative impression of the book. That is not a great outcome for a book response, and it highlights the potential issues with the sorts of off-the-cuff remarks I offered there. (That, in fact, is part of the reason it is filed under its own category, “Book Responses,” instead of the main “Book Review” category.) So: an addendum, which comprises a clarification and nearly a correction to the previous post. Read on, intrepid explorer →

From time to time I’ll be writing book responses, like this one – shorter than my formal reviews, and more a quick snapshot of my thoughts in response to the book than a careful dissection of the work.

Tullian Tchividjian’s1 Jesus + Nothing = Everything was, in one sense, a great book. In another, it was just okay. Read on, intrepid explorer →

In an interesting piece in The Atlantic last week (“Life Without Sex: The Third Phase of the Asexuality Movement”), Rachel Hill highlighted David Jay and his organization, the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network:

But what all asexual people have in common — and what defines asexuality as an orientation — is that, while they may have a desire to connect with other people, asexuals have no desire to connect with them sexually. Asexual people are not the same as celibate people: it’s not that they are purposefully or unintentionally abstaining from sex they would otherwise like to have, but rather that they have no interest in it.

The article is fascinating on several levels: its examination of asexuality as a “sexual orientation,” its exploration of the idea that for some people, sex just isn’t that important (however odd that may seem in our society), and its recognition that a sex-defined culture is perhaps not always beneficial. Read on, intrepid explorer →