If Jesus Ran For President...

I'm disappointed in the jab at the end (could have kept it nonpartisan), but this has some good stuff in it.

I noted to J how "socialist" Jesus sounds, with all his talk of the "redistribution of wealth." And J pointed out that, in fact, Jesus is worse than a socialist, because rather than wanting all things to be equal, he wants his followers to be sacrificial - to give MORE of themselves to others than others give to them. Not that if you have an extra coat you give it away to someone with none, but you give your extra coat and your other coat too! Jesus' ethic puts us lower than others...it means we are the last (who shall be first...).

It's just so un-American, isn't it?

Some random thoughts

Watching Obama's infomercial tonight kind of reminded me of watching The West Wing. I even got teary at the end. The joke in our house was that John cried at every episode - there was always this moment (in the first season at least) when it just got so heart-tugging, and I'd look over and he was wiping his eyes and trying to be inconspicuous, and I'd mock him relentlessly.

Anyway, bless the man, he read Michael Pollan's open letter to the next president. Here's what he said about it:

“I was just reading an article in the New York Times by MichaelPollan about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system isbuilt on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually iscontributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. Andin the mean time, it’s creating monocultures that are vulnerable tonational security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food pricesor crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and arepartly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs becausethey’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease,obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion inhealthcare costs. That’s just one sector of the economy. You thinkabout the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is trueon how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.For us to say we are just going to completely revamp how we use energyin a way that deals with climate change, deals with national securityand drives our economy, that’s going to be my number one priority whenI get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough tojust stabilize the immediate economic situation.”

(The full interview is here)

I'm about to head out to AAR, yay. Mostly very happy to see my family who are coming to watch Maggie while I attend my session.

I got to lunch today with a new prof at GTU who is teaching a class on (drum roll please) food and faith. Well that worked out pretty darn well. Turns out, she knows a lot more about the food side (and the socio-cultural aspects) than the faith (this she readily admits), so it's going to be a fun class to take because I'll get to learn about those aspects I don't know much about, and add to the discussion when it comes to the religion stuff. Plus it will be multi-faith, and looking at everything from gender issues to holidays, and there will be field trips...I mean, this is sounding like something that might even be worth stepping away from Maggie for. Just for three hours a week, that is!!

As for me I continue in my rather confused state, but I can't say much about where I'm at because life is just up in the air right now. Suffice to say that some days I'm a bit miserable, many days I'm OK, mostly I'm happy because mostly I'm with my daughter, and she's the light of my life. Thank God for the other moms I've met, who are getting my through all this, and for my breaks with family, which are more frequent these days. And I'm also really enjoying our church, so that is a blessing. (the ordination thing even came up recently...but I don't know how anxious I am to start down that road again)

Anyway I'm just praying John will be able to finish his degree soon and find a good job, so we can have good insurance again and he can be back teaching, which I know he misses. Though I do love having a great personal chef!

OK I'm going to get on with watching some hard-earned TV. Thank goodness Maggie went down easy tonight. Ha ha - she's like a fine wine - goes down easy, mellows with age. (or a cheese? more likely, with my genes)

Questions from an Undecided Voter

So I've been chatting with a close friend who's still undecided about who to vote for. I thought it might be interesting to post her questions here, in the hopes that you all might help me answer them. This is a long-time Republican (who admits she previously voted "blindly") who is really trying to make her own decision this time, and based on all her values, not just a single issue or two. So, here are the things still holding her up from voting for Obama - help me convert her! :)

1. Taxes: the concern is with Obama's plan which, according to what she's read, will cause her husband's employer (a small business that makes $7 mil a year) to pay so much more in taxes that the husband will likely be laid off (otherwise the owners would have to take a pay cut - which they estimated at $90,000 - and they won't like that). Now apart from the gross injustice of this situation (and what small business owner makes so much that they would have $90k CUT??), does anybody know enough about the tax plan to say whether this is actually the case? It sounds like crazy troll logic to me. But she claims that whenever Democrats are in the White House, his kind of job tends to be laid off (she admits this is partly due to the fact that they have contracts related to wars, and Republicans make more war...but when you're struggling to feed your family, keeping your job does come higher in your mind than worrying about war - and probably rightly so).

2. Abortion: apparently Obama has voted against banning partial birth abortion. Furthermore, he voted for some situation in which the end result was taxpayers funding abortions (I don't know the details on either of these - maybe you know what she's talking about?). She doesn't want her tax money paying for partial-birth abortions. She's also disturbed by this comment he apparently made about not wanting to "punish" his daughters with a baby (which I can't find in any reputable news sources but if you google that phrase, it's all over the conservative blogverse). Can anyone shed light on any of these tales? True, false, or what were the subtleties and details?

Thanks so much. I have hope! Yes, we can - get one more vote!

Serious Sustainability

Michael Pollan holds forth on how food is the link between many of the contemporary crises facing the country, and proposes some ideas for fixing the problem (goes with his letter to the next President).

I gots no time fer bloggin'

Because I'm happily spending my free time this week (it's "Reading Week" aka fall break) going out of town. So I have to get going on the homework. Instead of doing a real post I'll point you to some ones I've liked lately:

http://videoutintellectum.blogspot.com/2008/10/churches-could-lose-their-tax-exemption.html - Thoughts on prop 8, politics, and tax exemption by John McAteer


http://craig.purplestateofmind.com/?p=522 - thoughts on McCain's negative campaigning by Craig Detweiler


http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=3009 - thoughts on the broadening of the abortion debate by Jim Wallis





Don't forget to vote! I'm voting early by mail! And for my baby's sake (and because I always listen to her wisdom), I have to...

Food agenda for next potus

A note from Michael Pollan:

This Sunday's New York Times Magazine will carry my open letter to the next president, outlining a new food and farming agenda. It's called "Farmer-in-Chief" and it was just posted on the New York Times website at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

My intent is to inject these issues into the public debate, especially during the transition, by demonstrating that it will be impossible for the next Administration to make progress on energy independence, health care costs, or climate change without comprehensively addressing the problems of the food system.

I hope you'll take a look at the piece (as well as the rest of the issue, which is terrific) and share your reactions.

[I concur! - Stasi]

Are we our brother's keeper or not?

I am concerned and upset by an attitude I’ve been hearing from many Christians about politics. Maybe this is an old problem, but I just feel like lately I’ve been noticing it more. The basic complaint is that there are all these lazy people living off the government – which means they are living off of taxpayer money. The way that many people vocalize it is something along the lines of: they should not be expecting me to pay for their [fill in the blank: food, healthcare, too many kids, retirement, etc.] with MY hard-earned money.

This distresses me for many reasons. First, I think it reveals a basic insecurity about money (which we’re all coming by honestly these days) which is based on, frankly, loving money more than God. Jesus said you can only serve God OR money, not both, and if one is this obsessed with somebody else getting to use their money (as if any of it was ours to begin with), then one seems to have chosen the side of mammon. Jesus said do not worry about what you will eat, or wear, or how you’ll get by, because your heavenly father will take care of you. Now of course I recognize that we live in a world that requires us to have some means in order to at least put a roof over our heads. But then again, I wonder…there are people who manage these things without turning money into an idol. Then there are people who DON’T manage them, and still are content.

I’m not saying we have to be ascetics or stop buying things (though we should probably stop buying so many things), I’m just saying that the basic idea that it’s “MY” money is the root of all evil. When I got married I had to stop thinking of my finances and J’s – it became “our” money. Now I feel compelled to take it a step further – to admit that, in fact, since all good gifts come from God, I must be willing to return them all back to God. I must be willing to allow what I think is “mine” to belong to the whole world.

Another issue is believing that we don’t somehow hold responsibility for our neighbor, that we’re not our brother’s keeper. I heartily disagree – I believe we are absolutely called to take care of others, particularly the poor, as Christians. Sometimes I think of paying my taxes like giving alms – as part of my support of the poor and oppressed, done on a massive scale that I couldn’t accomplish alone (nor could my church). I believe that when Jesus says if we are asked for our coat we should give our shirt also, he’s specifically saying don’t hoard, don’t take more than you need, and give generously to all those in need. There are ways that the government can actually help in this (there are lots of ways they hurt too, of course). And there are ways to vote with our dollars – such as buying fair trade and supporting local farmers – that reflect this ethic.

This is also why I believe so strongly in universal healthcare. It’s not a perfect system – nothing is. But it’s the only way I can see that ensures everyone at least has a shot at getting medical help when needed. As a Christian I believe that healing is one of God’s gifts, and I absolutely believe God performs that work through medicine and doctors, not just through prayer (though God answers only prayer sometimes too, but more often I think it’s all these things working together). Because I want to live in a society that cares for its elderly and children equally with those who are healthy and wealthy, I have to be for universal healthcare. I have to go with the option that will cover the most people and will always be there for those who need it most. Market-based healthcare denies coverage to sick people, plain and simple. That’s backwards. And when healthy people use it (if they have a job that offers it), they often get screwed too. So it’s really bad to leave it in the hands of corporations and the free market. It’s simply not a commodity. And it’s not a responsibility or privilege. It’s a right. Because I believe in making this world as close to God’s ideal as possible, I believe it’s a right. Because in God’s world, everybody gets healed, whether they can afford it or not.

And whether they deserve it or not. This is another of my pet peeves. I hate this attitude that everybody who is poor is lazy, or everybody who needs some form of government assistance could get off it if they’d just work harder. First of all, that’s a joke in this economy. Second, you don’t know anybody’s life except your own; how dare you judge? (I believe Jesus has stuff to say about judging others too) Third, even if someone is ripping off the system, how is that any of your business? Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. More than that, God makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust. God gives generously to everyone, whether they deserve it or not! So if we want to emulate our heavenly father, we have to allow “our” money to be given just as generously and, yes, wastefully.

God’s grace is pretty darn wasteful. He wastes it on all sorts of undeserving people, most especially me. I don’t deserve a thing I’ve gotten from God – and neither do you. So how can we complain when the master forgives the debt of another? Or when he pays the same wage to someone who worked a fraction of the time we did? We can’t. (and if we don’t think of the money as our own, none of this will bother us anyway)

So maybe you think that all this economic stuff isn’t really in the Bible – that these are all spiritual metaphors. Maybe, but I am pretty sure at LEAST the stuff about loving God more than money is about money, and the rain falling on all equally is about farming which was their currency, and giving the coat and shirt is about generosity and sounds pretty darn practical, not just spiritual.

Many Christians only see one thing about money in the Bible – the place where Paul says that those who don’t work shouldn’t eat. Well it’s pretty silly to take that one literally and all the rest not. But even if you do, that verse is about people in the church, not the general public. Once people are in the church, yes, discipline can happen. We seem to have it backwards. We seem to think it’s our job to discipline the culture, and care only for those in the church. That’s not what the Bible teaches, it’s the opposite.

So, I don’t want to hear any more complaining from Christians about where their money goes – unless it’s complaining about it going to clearly non-Christian things, like war or oppression or environmental degradation or even, I would say, a big corporate bail-out (capitalism is not a Christian system). Just get over it, people. Your money is not your own, and when it’s used to help people, for crying out loud, get up and cheer, don’t bitch about it!! As Christians we are GLAD when something happens that helps others! It means God’s kingdom is making inroads on this sorry little planet. And if that something is not deserved or appreciated, well, that just makes it all the more like God’s greatest gift: his son. Does it not?

One final point to address: there’s the libertarian idea that the government shouldn’t be taking care of the poor because that’s the job of the churches. The government should, I guess, just be for defense (isn’t McCain’s spending freeze essentially going to do just this? Huh). But stop and think about this: if the general attitude of Christians is that poor people are lazy and don’t deserve financial help from those who are better off (however they got better off), then how in the world would that change if the churches suddenly took over? If Christians truly believe that it’s not “their job” to provide food, shelter, healing, education, and the like to others, then they church will be the LAST place people will find help and relief. The government HAS to pick up the slack, because as near as I can tell, there aren’t too many Christians who’ll be stepping up to take its place.

Christians like to give money to their pastors because their pastor’s “job” is to teach them and take care of them. Essentially, they see the church as a business in which they pay for a product – namely, the salvation of their soul – and receive benefits such as fellowship, counseling, programs for the kids, status in the community, good feelings, some nice entertainment on Sunday morning, and so forth. (ok that’s pretty cynical, but somewhere in that list there are at least a few things that everybody wants to get out of church) So, if you only want to give to the church because of what you get out of it, then your basic attitude about money has not changed. Your money is still in the service of YOU, and you alone. It has not been given over to God.

I think if the government took Christians up on their pleas to let charity become entirely privatized, the poverty in this country would dramatically increase, more children would go to bed hungry (it’s a travesty that so many already do), way more people would die or be ill because of lack of healing, and generally the idealized notion that the church would take over would be proven utterly false. Because the fact is, the attitude is not going to change overnight. And if you don’t believe the government should help the poor, then why would you believe the church should? The same issues will come up: who deserves it? Who’s not using it for drugs? Who’s got too many kids and thus doesn’t qualify? Who’s not living up to our standard of looking for work? And so forth.

We cannot forget: the rain falls on the just and the unjust. God gives without distinction. God doesn’t require drug testing, or limits on children, or proof that you’ll use your life well. And Jesus didn’t say to check and make sure the person really needs the coat – he said just give to whoever asks of you, and give MORE than they ask for. That’s a really hard calling. I’m not great at it. In fact, I really struggle with it. But I know that it means we can’t complain about these things.

It kind of boils down to what you think government is for, or what its potential is. If you believe the government’s only job is to make war (i.e. “defend” you – which usually actually means defending your way of life, i.e. your possessions), then you want it out of the public assistance business (and you probably make fun of “community service”). But if you believe the government can be used as an instrument of justice, then you try to vote and spend in ways that promote public good, even – perhaps especially – at taxpayer expense.

The final thing I have to say is that this is all, entirely, faith-based politics. I would never expect someone who does not have my faith to agree with this ethic. They might, because it can be arrived at through other means. But this, for me, is based on the teachings of Jesus, and I only hold Christians to his standards (and I do believe these are his standards – but if you are a follower of Jesus and disagree, let me know!). So please realize that this comes from a place of faith and is not universally applicable. But for you Christians out there – shape up!

Religulus

Unfortunately I don't have time to see this film right now, but I encourage you to check out the thoughtful review from Craig Detweiler.

I did catch a bit of Maher on The Daily Show. He was whining about how God always comes through a prophet - always speaks to somebody in a cave or on a mountain, but never comes in person to talk to humans and tell them about himself, to say "hi" and show us the way to live and all that.

Apparently, Maher hasn't heard of Jesus. Or if he has, he talked to Christians who didn't explain that in Jesus, Christians believe that is exactly what God did.

Oh, well.

Ever increasing separation

I forgot in yesterday's post to mention one other thing that someone said to me at church, and I really resonated with it and I think it's at the root of a lot of what I'm feeling.

She said that for moms, when you are pregnant, the baby is so close to you that she is quite literally a part of your body (or a parasite, if you prefer!). The moment you give birth, that baby starts a lifelong process of ever increasing separation from you.

At the moment of birth, dads meet their babies and begin connecting with them. Moms, on the other hand, instead begin losing connection.

It's why each little separation hurts ... and why I am so reluctant to stop co-sleeping (though we mostly have, but I miss that little body next to me so much, even though she wiggled so much I couldn't sleep most nights) ... and why even having her out of my arms feels strange.

And what really sucks for us mommies is that it just has to keep growing, this separation. In order to send a healthy human being out into the world, we must continue to allow her to be ripped from us in myriad ways as she explores and becomes her own person.

This is a hard thing. And it taps into deeply primal feelings, hard-wire stuff that many of us didn't know we had in us.

But, on a positive note, we found a support group of other parents that's starting up at church. That should help a lot.

And speaking of issues around babies, check out the Film Philosopher's (aka my baby Daddy) review of Lake of Fire. Now THAT was a seriously hard film to watch, and I wound up always watching it when nursing, which was all the more traumatic.

Screaming Inside

"how's it going?"
"how are you liking school?"
"are you enjoying your classes?"
"don't you just love the bay area?"

I get asked questions like these nearly every day. Usually the first two. And I never know exactly how I'm supposed to respond. Am I supposed to be honest and tell this person that I'm dying inside? I highly doubt they want to hear that. Especially the people from my school. How do I nicely explain that it's absolutely nothing personal, nothing against the school itself or the program or faculty, I simply experienced an existential crisis and suddenly discovered that I'm really a stay at home mom and I'm fighting that identity with everything in me and it's making me miserable? How can I explain to a person without kids - or even a working mother - that every moment I am away from my child I am being eaten up inside...I hurt every second of it. It's not a relief. It's an ache. I am sorry every moment that I'm not with her. And not guilt-sorry, but regret-sorry.

Absence doesn't make my heart grow fonder. Presence does. I don't know why or how, but I honestly don't get tired of her. Maybe one day I will...but on that day, maybe I'll be ready for my own life again. At the moment, I really wasn't. Oh, I'm still doing it - I'm still out there doin' the career thing. But it's not fulfilling or fun. Yes, I sit there and have adult conversations. I find them boring. Yes, I am ridiculously obsessed with my baby. But it's my truth right now.

And I know it's all me - it's not anybody else's problem or fault. I blame nothing but myself. Still, it's hard to live with. I so wish I'd not taken any classes. I wish I'd listened to my heart and been good to myself. I'm still taking lots of time with Maggie, but selfishly, it's not enough. I'd rather play with her or read parenting books than do homework. I mean, I didn't know it would be like this - not when I applied or when I accepted or when I enrolled or when I decided to stick it out with one class. I keep testing the waters, but it keeps coming back Maggie, Maggie, Maggie.

I think I'm getting depressed. I'm having trouble sleeping, and getting obsessive & anxious, and getting mad at everybody over dumb things. I feel so rootless. I have no home. No safe place. I can't even think of one that I have access to (and I've tried - when I meditate, I have no "happy place" to go to). Yes, that's a bad situation I put myself in. Naughty me. But I have to live with it now, and find a way forward.

I mean, don't think I'm all crazy sad and crying all the time. In fact, I'm quite good, most of the time -because I'm with Maggie most of the time. And that's why I wonder if there isn't something to this staying at home thing, because the only time I'm sad is when I'm not with her. I don't need time away. I simply don't right now. I really do just hate sitting there in class, or when I have to send her away with Daddy so I can read. I really hate being away from her.

And yes, I know I have to cut her loose to be her own person one day. But for God's sake, she's four months old. I don't think I'm smothering her yet!

It's funny...people kept telling me I'd feel different.
Oh, you're just pregnant.
Oh, you're just postpartum.
Oh, you've just moved.
Oh, you just have a newborn.
Oh, this that and the other.

Ummmm...Or maybe, I actually feel this way. Maybe it's not to be blamed on hormones or stress. Maybe I'm genuinely at a place in my life where the best thing for me is to just be a Mommy.

Well there's not much I can do about it. I'm sticking out the year at least, to make sure I don't screw up this golden opportunity at the phd. I can always do a phd later, it's true (and I wish I had), but I won't necessarily have the deal I have right now, which is pretty ideal. So I'm giving it a good fair shot. And who knows? I couldn't have predicted not liking it, so maybe one day I'll surprise myself and love it again.

Or maybe I'll just remain so deeply in love with my child that I will let the screaming out of my insides, into the world, and then it can be quiet in there. I'd so love that. To just be real and honest and me. Even if the me is really a disappointment to the academic world, and the feminists, and whoever else thinks I'd be wasting my life.

OK, I'm going back to my baby now. I'm not wasting any more of these precious moments on you people. Ha ha -just kidding! I would be lost without this blog. I need the venting space, and I need your support. But I also need to change a diaper, so bye!

Rebirth of my inner preacher

So I signed up to preach at the episcopal seminary's chapel. I wound up getting one of the hardest texts to preach, esp for a universalist/liberal/interfaith person like me. I wrote three wildly different sermons before settling on the one you'll read below. It was really hard to get back into the mode, after a year away from the pulpit. It took a while to find my voice again (had to go reread some old sermons - which is a bit depressing because some are really good & I always wonder if I'll ever hit those heights again).

The first draft was actually a very nice, adequate, liberal, touchy-feely sermon that would have been quite forgettable and would have been very comfortable for me to give. By the final draft, I was writing words that even I wasn't sure I agreed with - but somehow I felt that they were what God wanted to say. I was really nervous about it, but in the end, actually giving it was just kind of a blur because I have a horrible cold and I'm all stuffed up, so I feel like I haven't slept in days and I'm kind of in a fog. I mostly just wanted it to be over so I could sleep. So I hope the spirit did something with it, because this clay jar was pretty broken.

But in the end, J liked it, and he's my toughest critic, so usually I can figure it's not too bad if it gets his seal of approval. Apparently I didn't deliver it with my usual flair, but again, I was barely able to stand up, so I'm giving myself a pass. [it's funny - I remembered that my last sermon before a congregation I was running a temp of 102...what is it with the preaching and the illness?]

Anyway, here it is.

Owning the Way

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Challenging.

Exclusive.

Intolerant.

Hateful.

Gospel?

I am a Christian. A Christ-follower. For me, Jesus must be the way, the truth, and the life. Otherwise, what am I doing here?

And yet. And yet.

My friends are not all Episcopalians. They are not all Christians. They are Muslims and Jews, who respect Jesus but do not worship him. They are Hindus, who may see him as one of many gods. They are Buddhists, who resonate with some of his teachings but do not get the point of a personal god.

How do I share this gospel with them?

And what of us, the Christ-followers? Is Jesus “the” way or merely “a” way? Can we even agree on what the word “Christ” means? Has the name Jesus become an embarrassment?

Can we own these words – this scandalous statement of Christ?

Well. One thing I know is that we always must put scenes like this into their whole context.
So let's back up a little.

Peter has asked Jesus where he is going, and Jesus says Peter can’t follow him now, but he will follow him later. Many believe Jesus means he is going to the cross, where one day Peter too will be martyred. Despite his proud boasts, Peter cannot follow Jesus in this way…yet.

But Jesus has another destination: his Father’s house, where there are many rooms. He goes to prepare a place for his disciples. He tells them that they already know the way to this place.

But how, Thomas asks, can they know the way to the place, when they don’t even know where it is he is going?

Now Jesus has already told them that he’s going to return for them, to personally bring them to himself. So really, it doesn’t matter all that much if they know the way to the place or not. Still, he indulges the question, giving one of those beautiful answers that is extremely pointed and contextual, yet very easy to pull out and place on a bumper sticker.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Who speaks this? It is the Logos. The one who was there, in the beginning, with God. The Word that was spoken to create the universe. The Word that came out of the burning bush. The Word that tickled the prophets’ ears and soothed the fears of boy kings.

This is the Word by which God reaches into the world, how he communicates with us, so it makes perfect sense that, incarnate or otherwise, this Word is the Way back to the Father.

No one comes to the Father except through Jesus because Jesus is, simply, the self-revelation of God. “All truth is God’s truth, as all life is God’s life; but God’s truth and God’s life are incarnate in Jesus.” (FF Bruce)

And what of the destination: the Father’s house? It has many rooms, or “dwelling places.” There are many different places to dwell, to be, and still be in God's house.

But the way to the house is Jesus.

The way isn’t a set of propositions, or a particular denomination, or even a certain religion. The way is a person, who opened the doors to God’s house and stands ready to receive everyone into many rooms.

Should we wish to follow Jesus, we already know the way…it is the way of the cross – with all the love, sacrifice, humility, weakness, and faith that requires.

How do we explain this? How can we make it make sense to others?

1 John 4:6: “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us.”

When someone truly knows God, he or she will recognize God in Jesus.

Many people see God shining from the lives of Mohandas Gandhi or Sojourner Truth or Cesar Chavez. If you honestly look at Jesus – at what he said and most importantly, how he acted – you simply know he’s from God.

Our calling is to present Jesus in such a way that he is obviously Godlike. Tell the truth about Jesus, and it will point unequivocally to God – to the God whose way is the way of the cross.

That is not exclusive; it is simply the reality of who Jesus is. And it is not forcing belief in Jesus on others; it is simply revealing the way God reached into the world through the Logos.

My hope for each of us here in this Christian seminary is that we are able to say that, at least for us, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The journey of others to God is their own; but for we who claim the title “Christian,” these challenging words are our statement of faith.

May we, with all grace, own them.

Women Pastors: Unfit for Public View?

Shocked, offended, disappointed...and not all that surprised.

That pretty much sums up my reaction to this story about Lifeway Christian Stores pulling the magazine Gospel Today off its shelves and hiding it, like so much pornography, behind the counter.

What, you may ask, was so horrible about this issue that it would be hidden away, only available if asked for, and kept safe from the public eye (and impressionable young children)?

Well, duh - because the cover story reported a shocking reality: there are WOMEN who are PASTORS!!

Let's leave aside for a moment the complete idiocy of pretending that women clergy don't exist in this day and age, and the asinine assumption that reporting something exists means promoting it.

Let's jump straight to the dangerous mind-control exhibited by the Southern Baptist Convention in believing it needs to shield people who shop its stores from even the knowledge that such a thing exists. Oh sure, they say it's because it's against their doctrine. But don't you think it's really just that seeing women in that position gets under their skin? The reaction - to place the mag behind the counter - makes clear that they view the very position of these women as so offensive as to be pornographic, as unfit for public viewing.

That makes me sick. And as a woman who's trying to be in ministry professionally, it hurts.

And besides, I'm sure the "gay agenda" or Satan worshipping or abortions are against their doctrine too, but that hasn't stopped many Christian magazines with cover stories reporting on those issues from being displayed in stores. The key here is that the magazine was simply saying this exists, it's an interesting phenomenon, and desiring to start a conversation.

But God, we can't have conversation! That might lead to independent thought! And then...well...they'd probably lose a good number of their members. Let's hope at least the females.

This reminds me of the story I wrote on about seminaries running degree programs in Christian homemaking. It's just ugly behavior toward women, particularly these women who have answered their callings despite many barriers and odds against them. I'm surprised they haven't mandated the head coverings called for by the apostle Paul for women in church. As long as they're letting women get away with the makeup, hair, and jewelry I see on TBN, I don't get why showing a woman in pastoral garb is unbiblical. Have you people read 1 Timothy? You can't take the Bible literally and then let your wives, even with their degrees in home cookin' and Sunday School teachin', get away with that kind of display!

Well I have to get on to watching the debate. Here's another version of the story. And thanks to Episcopal Cafe, where I found out about it.

Otherizing Obama

The Push to "Otherize" Obama

"What is happening, I think, is this: religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice. In public at least, it’s not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate’s skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian.

"The result is this campaign to “otherize” Mr. Obama. Nobody needs to point out that he is black, but there’s a persistent effort to exaggerate other differences, to de-Americanize him."

White Privilege

At the risk of opening myself to attack, I have to post this from Tim Wise. He brings up a lot of thought-provoking points. I don't know if everything he's saying is exactly accurate (I haven't had time to keep up with all the Palin family characters & ensuing drama), but it rings true. I know it isn't fair, but that's rather the point. It's certainly inflammatory, but c'mon, it's a blog! We know all about inflammatory here. :)

http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated

and the followup:
http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/explaining-white-privilege-deniers-and-haters

Here's a taste:
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

...

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”


...

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.
 [stop & think about that for a minute...person holding a gun, or talking about their gun, and the color of their skin...and your gut reaction...this one really gets me]

[Oh, I do disagree with his statement about the amniotic fluid...there he is belying some ignorance of the birth process...so perhaps he's wrong about several things...but I still found it to be food for thought...something to chew on...I think I'm hungry...]

Spiritual Gifts

So here's a question that arose for me today. I'll try to recreate the chain of thought:

In today's sermon the preacher talked about the "evil eye", referring actually to envy (it was the parable of the workers who are pissed that they work all day and get the same wage as the workers who worked 1 hour - apparently they gave these people the "evil eye") (btw this is all hilarious to us b/c we always talk about the evil eye at home - usually one of the cats is giving it around here - but that's neither here nor there).

So ANYWAY he was talking about how he had the evil eye for the people with iphones until he got one. And I got to thinking about how my envy issue is about ordination. Specifically, it's about my friends who are sailing through their ordination processes with no problems whatsoever, after all my struggles and eventual giving up.

Now I realize LOTS of people have horrible times in the process. But for some reason, I don't feel in solidarity with them - I am more just jealous of people, however few they may be, who have no trouble with it. Primarily this is because the people I know who have an easy time of it are people who mostly didn't know they wanted to be ordained, or hadn't given it much thought, and just kind of fall into it. They trip and land in the ordination almost by accident, while I've been clawing for years for the privilege. They don't even realize what they have, and I couldn't want anything more.

And I found myself saying that what really gets me, when I'm horribly honest (and here comes a self-revelation that is probably among the reasons I'm not a good ordination candidate!), is that I feel like I'm gifted at the stuff that goes into the priesthood, and a lot of times, I see others who, if I may be crass, just don't seem as gifted at it getting straight through. Or maybe they're not interested, or maybe not as smart, or even not as spiritual, or whatever. You know, it's that nasty side that I have where I say hey, I'm better than they are!

Oh, don't judge me. You probably have felt that way about something you wanted too.

Anyway, so yes, I'm rather petty about it when I let myself be, which isn't often. But I heard myself say this, and I realized wait, one thing I think I believe is that God often works with the weakest and least among us because God wants to prove God's strength in their weakness. Makes sense, right? I mean, it's the point of the quote I keep at the top of this blog from Dr. John.

So then I thought wait, there are two schools of thought on this. There's the school that says that I am gifted and passionate about something and that's God telling me it's the thing I'm supposed to do. I call it the Liddell school of thought: God made me fast, and when I run I feel his pleasure (Chariots of Fire). I want to be a priest because God made me that way.

But the other school is that God makes us exactly not gifted for the things we do because in our weakness God is strong. God wants to prove that it's her work and not of our own ability, so God lifts up those who seem like they wouldn't be good at the work, just to show us all that God can do anything with anyone.

There seem to be biblical and historical examples on both sides of the question. So I don't really know if one is right, or if they might just apply differently in different circumstances, to different people, depending what you need to learn in this life.

And I don't really know which applies to me, although I have a hunch it's the second one, because I know I get too proud of myself when I'm exercising my gifts (I can't help it - it brings me so much joy).

So what do you think? Are our spiritual giftings signs of our place in the kingdom? Or are they roadblocks to our true calling? Should we be looking at what we love and are good at when discerning vocation, or run in the opposite direction? Just how much of our own ability are we allowed to rely on - even relish - and what of it is God-given for God's purposes, and therefore not ours to own? Or is that a false dichotomy?

I really am confused about this now. I really don't understand how both of these could be true at the same time. But if it winds up being that I'm not supposed to do the things I'm good at and most love, then I'll be honest with you: that will make me sad. But I'll try to keep my evil eyes to myself. And I'll try to convert my jealousy to awe when I see God working in someone else's life in miraculous ways.

Some provocative food posts

I am really fascinated by these two posts (and the comments) by the participants in a food studies class at Pomona:

First I was sent this tidbit, which is outrageous (the actual website is so offensive - it brings up so many bad racial stereotypes!):
Obama Waffles

And then I noticed this post, which is pretty germane to my life these days (and I do find myself weirded out by breastfeeding even as I do it myself!):
Breastfeeding, Cow's Milk, and the Idea of "Natural"

Can't wait to be part of discussions like this with my students - what a great idea to have a class blog!

I figured it out

3 am feedings are fabulous for mental clarity. Last night I sussed out that what was really bugging me wasn't so much that I had to take my class for a grade, or that the faculty might see me as a slacker. What really was getting to me was that I had compromised what I wanted to do and chosen the path that, I thought, made me a better student and more agreeable all around. And the reaction seemed to be that it still wasn't good enough. I had honestly tried to make everyone involved happy, and it wound up backfiring and seemingly making nobody happy. Best laid plans, you know.

Anyway I got the fee waived so that's a blessing. And being graded isn't really a problem since I'll do the same level of work either way. If Maggie winds up getting sick or something, then I'll find some way to deal - that's why God gave us incompletes, right?

It's tough when you feel like you're taking one for the team and the team says no, you're still doing it wrong. Makes it hard to wanna stay on the team.

But I'm here for now, at least for this year. I gotta give it that. And besides, I'm pretty sure I do have some bona fide depression going on, since the insomnia (after that 3 am feeding I pretty much didn't get to sleep again) and the crying jags have started up again. That's just oodles of fun. So I guess I have to medicate myself so I can continue on with life. Joy. I really wish I didn't have to. To me, better living through chemistry is the last resort. But I surely can't go on getting so little sleep. So we'll see. I've been on hold with Kaiser for about 15 mins now...not sure I can mentally handle the process of getting mental help!

Thank the LORD I have a wonderful friend from LA coming up this weekend. I miss my friends SO much!! It's so weird and hard to start over with all new people, even though we've met some great people, they still don't know our history, so it's just not the same. I'm so grateful that God keeps sending me visitors at just the right moments. It's going to be so good! Esp because last night in my insomniac craze I was getting ready to drive back home any moment...

Faith & Food

These is my kinna peeps:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503593.html?referrer=emailarticle

Gotta get my book out soon or this trend will pass! Curse my sexy topic!

"I've made a huge mistake"

Well not really, but it always makes me laugh to hear that line (from many, many episodes of Arrested Development), so J & I use it for every little thing. And big things too. But mostly it's funny to say it when you forget to ask for no pickles on your burger or something.

Anyway I feel like a total moron now. The whole taking my class pass/fail thing got blown way out of proportion, and wound up going to the whole faculty for discussion, and now I'm basically mortified because all these people will forever see me as The Girl Who Wanted to Take Her Classes Pass/Fail. (insert organ chords here)

I'm trying to make light but actually I'm damn depressed. I feel like I've screwed up my reputation. They want us to take classes for a grade so they "know we're taking them seriously." Well that makes sense, but also, I always take school seriously. So it didn't occur to me that I might send the signal that I'm not. That's why I wrestled so hard with the decision of what to do this fall.

And then I made a choice that I thought would make everybody satisfied, and I still got busted. I thought I was making the responsible choice, still being a relatively good student in light of my new responsibilities, and I still come off looking like the yahoo, the slacker. And I hate that because people, I am no slacker. God, I've put so much pressure on myself my whole life. My teachers used to chastise my parents for pushing me so hard, and they had to tell them it was all me. And this was in grade school.

Anyway I'm cranky and depressed. After they met I felt like they were all treating me differently. Like oh, we're so stupid for giving that girl our big scholarship. And then I went to the opening convocation for the year, and there I am in the program as one of the few scholarship people, and I was just miserable and embarrassed. I couldn't enjoy it. Well I did enjoy it when Maggie started laughing because I was bouncing her, but I had to make her stop, so pooey.

At least I have the blog to vent on. I'm pissed also because they didn't make this decision until after it was too late for me to change it for free, so now I might have to pay $50 to change to a grade, even though I was completely within my rights (per anything written down) to take the class pass/fail. If someone along the way would have just said, "I think you might want to leave it as a grade" then I totally would have! But now I'm stuck and I have been instructed to change it, but not because of a policy or anything, but because that's what's expected. And I get it - I totally get it. I just really wish it were made clear. I was confused and now I pay the price. I realize that a lot of stuff is just politics and unwritten laws, but it's difficult when you haven't learned to play the game yet and the rules keep changing on you. If it were expected, then it should be made clear in the handbook. The handbook, in fact, says the opposite - that classes may be taken pass/fail - and doesn't say anything about needing to take grades. So it's super confusing. And coming from a school where there's no stigma attached to p/f, I didn't realize what a big deal it would become. It wasn't a big deal to me at all.

OK, I can stop now. I'm also pissed at our housemates because they're eighteen and they are used to their parents cleaning up after them, and they don't really know how to run a household or keep things nice. So J and I are getting to take care of a lot of stuff that we'd rather not, like picking through their trash to get out the recyclables, etc. Next time I'm getting more seasoned roommates, people who've lived on their own a while and know how to keep house. It's just more than I feel like dealing with.

Maggie's been especially drama queen lately - she's super happy most of the time (thankfully, usually that's in public), but then when she's tired, she has major meltdowns. This just started. She used to nap so readily. Now she has to scream for at least a couple minutes and sometimes a half hour before she'll go down. Ugh. So when she's doing this, the last thing I feel like doing is also parenting two teenagers (who have sex waaaay too loudly and then fight waaaaay too loudly, not always in that order).

Anyway there's a lot in my life. You see now why I needed the break from school?! And yes, I'll admit it, today I finally really did get depressed. But not about Mags, she's still mostly wonderful (excepting the meltdowns). Just about my rep at school, and dealing with the people I live with, and generally feeling like...well...I've made a huge mistake.

Ha ha.

Mommy/Scholar

So I'm sure you've been on the edge of your seat waiting to see what I might do about school and/or full-time motherhood. At least I have been. And it was a ping-pong decision 'til the last moment.

I talked with my dean and it turns out that the institution has this wonderful "parents policy" that states their belief that parenthood (both new and taking care of elderly parents) is so important that the school will grant extensions in academic progress to those who are in one of those situations and need extra time to get everything done. Wow - how very enlightened of them! So with that policy I could take off a semester or even a year from classes and not be considered deliquent or whatever you want to call it.

Furthermore, they arranged a way for me to keep my scholarship and health insurance - the money would go to paying for "prep for comps" credits (which are phantom credits that you pay for but don't have any requirements to meet), so I wouldn't get it back for another semester, but I also would keep my full time status, stipend, and insurance. The drawback would be that whatever I missed this semester I'd have to make up later, out of my own pocket.

Still, I left that meeting feeling really surprised and relieved, because as far as the institution goes, there were no roadblocks to my full-time mommyhood. I have to give major props to the GTU for this. I don't know of very many doctoral programs that would be so understanding. It really is such a family here. And to think - I was afraid that the "liberals" might be all cold and academic - but they're just as warm as the Evangelicals! Maybe even moreso, since there's not all that moral expectation that goes along with friendship (just kidding...sort of).

Then I met with one of my profs who also had babies while doing her PhD, and she assured me that everything I felt was completely normal and right. See, a few people had suggested maybe I had post-partum depression, so I was wondering if I was a bit off the deep end. But in fact, PPD manifests as a rejection of the baby and as not wanting to spend time with her, and I'm having the opposite "problem." So maybe I'm depressed generally, but no, I don't remotely feel so - I don't cry, I feel really happy all the time I'm with her and much of the time I'm not, and overall I think my mental health is way better than it's been in years - but I did have the stress of this decision, and I was sad when I was away from her sometimes. And being sad away from your child is normal healthy attachment!! Imagine! I've just bonded with my baby, but it's so strong that our society sees it as a syndrome! Well not our society, but it was the first thing that came to mind for a few folks, innocently enough (they probably didn't realize that it was the opposite symptoms), but still, that's a sign of the misinformation out there as well as the general response to motherhood which tends to see women who have such a strong attachment to their children as somehow "less" human, or lacking some vital part of being an adult, or what have you. I've certainly bought into that mentality, until now.

So anyway, my prof still expressed disappointment that I wouldn't be taking any classes, and that I wouldn't be "tracking" with the incoming class (although as J pointed out, who cares in a doctoral program? It's not like we're all going to graduate together). So I left THAT meeting feeling like maybe I should try to take my classes after all. But was that because I wanted to, or because I wanted to make my prof like and respect me? Hmmm....that was the question I had to ponder.

That was all on Tuesday. By Wednesday, I was trying to come up with ways to stay in class but also stay with Maggie as much as I could. I cooked up a plan to go all pass/fail, but even then I knew I'd still do the same level of work (that's just me) and I didn't know if I was allowed to do that anyway. On Weds morning I took Maggie with me to a workshop at school for half the day, and she did great, and I was so happy to just have her there but still be doing my school stuff. So I was thinking, this could work.

Thursday I talked to my advisor. After the institution, I was most afraid of the reaction I'd get from her. I mean, she's German. She's brilliant, too. And doesn't have kids, so could she possibly understand?

Well I was shocked when she started off on a rant about how women in her country take a year off and what is WRONG with America that we expect women to go back to work so early, and why doesn't the government support maternity leave, and yada yada yada...and I realized, hey, this lady is SO on my side. She was like, "I don't know why you don't just take this whole year off!!" I was really thrown, but pleasantly so. And she agreed to go to our area and explain the whole thing and be my advocate. Wow. I love my advisor.

So after that I went to J and suggested I take off this semester from classes, and then we'll see about next. And he got really excited because as it turns out (and as many of you warned me), he hasn't actually had time to work on his dissertation, and if I took baby full time then he'd actually get something done! Imagine!

Then I went to class and I had a great time. I wasn't miserable at all - I was rather outstanding, actually. I really enjoyed our discussion and I remembered how good I could be at the whole school thing. I don't know if it was just from the pressure being off or what. But I still felt like I was going to drop everything, even after that.

Then that evening I told the prof (same prof as before, who also teaches that class) that I was dropping. And she expressed the same sentiments: sorry not to have me, I was an asset, and sorry I wouldn't keep up with my class. For some reason, it really stuck this time. I began to doubt again. So much so that I was up half the night deliberating and rethinking everything. And let me tell you, it ain't fun to look over and see that it's past midnight when you know you're getting up in three or four hours for a feeding. I was mostly upset because I couldn't figure out if I was doubting because I wanted to please the prof or because I genuinely doubted whether I should quit classes.

Friday morning, got up, still feeling disconcerted. One of the things (of many wise things) my mom had said to me about this was that I should make the decision I wouldn't obsess over. Well clearly I was still obsessing, so the decision wasn't right yet. I also kept remembering something my best friend, a SAHM, said to me: that she regretted not working. I'd never heard a SAHM admit that! And then finally I had gotten an email from another woman who had had babies during her GTU doctorate, and she strongly encouraged me not to drop everything, telling me I'd feel great about myself if I could pull off school and motherhood together. And I knew somehow that she was right about that (but could I pull it off?).

I guess at this point I might as well cut off the rest of the story (I mean, gawd, how could this possibly interest anyone but me at this point??) and get to the decision, which wound up being to drop one class, keep the other (the foundational class taught by, yes, the prof who's been instrumental in all this), but make it pass/fail (turns out there is no policy on that, so I'm testing uncharted waters), and not put any pressure on myself to do anything except the one class this semester (and when I go to things like meetings and workshops, Maggie goes too). I worked out a schedule with John in which Mon-Thurs I take Maggie in the morning with no other agenda, and then for three hours in the afternoon I do school (homework or class or meetings - but no more than three hours, maybe less some days) and he takes her, and then in the evenings and Fri-Sun I completely take off and don't think about school one bit. Except of course for the conversations I have with him about what I'm learning, because he loves to get all up on his high horse about liturgical stuff. :)

Anyway I think that's what will work. At least, I'm giving it a try. With the class at p/f I don't have to stress about a grade, and I can allow myself to lower my standards a bit, just for this one semester, just because I am responsible for the growth and development of a human being (which hey, is a pretty awesome responsibility). I mean, of course she'll still be here next semester and after that too, but I have to deal with that when it comes (and these first months are so crucial - plus I'm still feeding her exclusively from my body, which won't be the case later).

So in the end it was a compromise, but I actually think it might make everyone involved pretty happy. I feel good about it. I couldn't let myself quit school completely - not after I'd done so much to get here and we'd invested so much in my going. No, I am still a student (as I learned in class Thursday), and I need to keep that side of myself alive. But I think I found a way to do it and keep my highest priority here at home, my real full-time job being Maggie. I'll do about 12 hours a week on school, which really isn't that much time when you think about it.

Plus if she does something amazing, I will just be in the next room.

Wow. Good old Feminarian. She found a way to keep juggling all her balls after all. OK, I'm getting back to my baby now.