Domestic Virtues

I confess it freely - I am not a good housewife. But then, I am not married to my HOUSE!!!

I'm a bit of a phobic house cleaner (I like to avoid doing it until you can see the dust bunnies so I know where I've been.) I don't enjoy planning, shopping and cooking meals (which is why I did once-a-month cooking for so many years so that it took as little of my time as possible!) And though I love my own kids like crazy, it's not my life's ambition to work with large groups of children. (I did not birth a litter!)

This semester I'm taking two classes for "women" which are so divergent in their views that it is making it hard to keep my biases and perspective from impinging on a good scholastic analysis. One is a Feminist Theology class which is blowing my mind with the heady exegesis and argumentation. The other is a Mentoring for Women class, which is steeped in more traditional woman-to-woman mentoring.

It is not that I don't believe that my mom, my older sibs, my grandmothers and aunts did not build a lot into my life and into who I am. They did. And still do. It's that they didn't JUST teach me about "a woman's place" or "a woman's job" -- because they are all strong, focused, gifted women... or were. They all cared about other people, and invested in those who needed more support and investment. They took their resources and used them, not just for their comfort needs, but to bring comfort to others.

So when I read this quote in my reading this week, I about flipped...

Quoting John Adams: "From all that I had read of history and government of human life and manners, I had drawn this conclusion, that the manners of women were the most infallible barometer toascertain the degree of morality nd virtue of a nation. The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the Swiss, the Dutch, all lost their public spirit and their republican forms of government when they lost the modesty and domestic virtues of their women."

I object.

Men AND women make moral choices, value choices which affect society. Men AND women own businesses, investments and are stakeholders in public enterprise. In John Adams' time, MEN were the ones who were voting, elected to government and owning property. One might also remember that WOMEN had no voting rights (and in some cases few legal rights) in any of the cultures he listed.

OK. Back to my reading. Now I have to go look for where I threw that textbook I was reading...

Deb

273 emails later...

Yes. 273.

All SP*M.
All within a 20 minute period.
All advertising pharmaceuticals which enhance body parts that are not on my body.

Yes, I changed my email password. Ran my virus software. Changed my on-line access password. Cleared my cache, and rebooted.

GRrrrrrrrrrrrr....

Deb

P.S. WHO KNEW there were so many ways to spell a certain anatomical word and still have it pass the email trashcan filters???

fun vs. madness

As this rant begins, please understand that I like to have fun. I like to dress up. I've bought my share of Disney costumes because "nothing else" would do.

We've handled Hallowe'en different ways. We've just gone to a "holy" Hallowe'en party at a church (aka "Harvest Party" or "Trick or Trunk" which takes the holiday and plasters it with Bible characters.) We've been at a friend's house. We've walked our kids around the neighborhood and socialized with friends... and we've gone away for the weekend. I've sewn elaborate costumes, and created simple ones. This year I have done nothing to help the girls with their costumes... they both had their own ideas. One is dressed as "Polly" from "An Acceptable Time" and the other one is "A Paradise Lost" (A pair of dice- lost). I am going to be "Miss Understood". Tiara, scepter and regal banner across my chest.

It was the article in the Washington Post yesterday on the highly hyped and sexied-up costumes for our girls that first got my thoughts whirling. Though I don't know what took so long to get people's attention, because I have been distressed by some of this "tarting up" of Hallowe'en (not my favorite holiday, anyway.)

I wonder why we feel the need to give in to these whims of our kids, especially our girls. Why we let them bare their bellies or wear fishnets and high heels. Yes, it is only make-believe. Yes, they can pretend. But do you really REALLY want your 10 year old to be dressed up as a "french maid"? Or as some kind of "fairy-licious" creature who is showing more skin than they do in a bathing suit? Why is it that boys don't seem to feel the need to accentuate their various body parts?? Google "pre-teen Halloween" and see what I mean...

There is a line between being a prude, being creative, and being exploitative. I don't know as I have figured that one out yet. But there's one thing I do hope becomes clear...

I hope parents will finally realize that most of the costumes out there are market-driven, product placement cheap "made-in-prison-factories" outfits. They are not creative. They are not fun. They sell movies. They capitalize on games. This is all OK, I guess, as long as you can see yourself as a market-driven pawn.

I really dislike it. (That summation was in case I wasn't clear...)

heehee...

Deb

sometimes I won't lock-step

I got one of these emails that we all probably get...

"I wanted to alert you to this terrible _______ (movie/book/product/activity) that is being promoted. It will destroy our children's faith and bring us all into heresy if we _______________ (watch it/read it/use it/do it). Tell all of your friends to boycott ________________!"

NOTE: This is not an actual email.
This is similar to many I have received.

OK. It's time for a mild rant...

First of all, I have usually deleted without a thought the emails that suggest I don't love Jesus if I don't forward whatever someone has sent with with artsy-fartsy graphics and glitter text, with a Bible verse tacked on the end. I do love Jesus. I just don't think He wants to see His Name linked with this stuff. And I also don't like the ones that expect me to send it back to you if you are my BFFIJC - (...for those of you not in the know, that "Best Friend Forever In Jesus Christ.") And if you have sent me these emails, I apologize for being so rude about it. But I am still your friend if I don't send it back to you. I promise.

Second, I really, REALLY dislike Bible verses used out of context. And in these kinds of emails, they usually are. Don't make me get out my commentaries and use them on you.

Third, I don't think that just because a leading Christian organization or speaker doesn't like a specific movie/book/product/activity excuses me from the right to use my own MIND and DISCERNMENT to prayerfully evaluate it. Your life may require that you abstain from things like this. Or, your personality make-up may cause you to struggle with certain things that don't bother me. (And to be honest, the reverse may be true.) I think in these cases, it calls for acceptance that others may interpret the "shoulds" differently that you or I do. And it's OK. Really.

That's it. I'm done. (Stick a fork in me...)

Deb

Church For Men

Apparently the modern evangelical church is unfriendly to men.

I am not making this up. David Murrow has a website and is selling a book about it. According to him, there are seven "proven principles for creating a man-friendly church" today.

Rick Warren in his "Pastor's Toolbox" has included an article by the author to explain these principles. I won't quote the rationale here (it's copyrighted after all) but I would like to respond to them...

Principle one: Cultivate a healthy masculine spirit in your church.

Excuse me. How about a HUMAN spirit? Wait, no, that's not good theology. How about the HOLY Spirit? Too simplistic? Too touchy-feely? Does this mean we are going to get more of the football analogies and wrestling match metaphors?

Principle two: Make men feel needed and wanted.

Yes. And women too. And children. And the poor and ill. The refugee. The disenfranchised.

Principle three: Present Christ's masculine side.

It makes sense that Christ was made incarnate in a male gendered person for a male-dominated first-century world. We've come a long way, baby. Or maybe not.

Principle four: Avoid feminine terminology.

Apparently, according to Murrow, words such as "relationship" or "precious" are not words that a "typical man" would say. I am sure that the women they are married to would agree -- but perhaps it is time to change this??

Principle five: Preach shorter sermons.

The "ADD'ing of America" has hit both genders. I am not sure this is a "manly" problem. However, if Murrow means to stop preaching sermons that sound like you swallowed a Greek lexicon, or you have miscellaneous facts you learned in seminary and must squeeze them in or your brain will pop, I'm the first to yell AMEN!

Principle six: Become students of men.

Murrow feels that pastors spend their time making women volunteers "happy" and they don't "understand" men. I can see the collective head-scratching of my fellow female church members on that one.

Principle seven: Create a culture of person-to-person challenge.

Murrow suggests that it should not be a pulpit-only challenge to personal growth in Jesus, but a one-on-one, iron-sharpening-iron mode. And this only works for men???

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

Ugh. Now why is it that when books like this are published they are hailed as "ground-breaking" but if one were to be written from women's perspective it is often referred to as "divisive" and "strident"???

I really do try to not sound like a crazed feminist, but when I read stuff like this, I either want to hurl something at my computer, or just hurl.

Jesus came, lived and died for ALL people. Men. Women. Slave. Free. Jew. Greek. Or was Paul just joking in Galatians 3?

There are issues in the church today that have nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with gender, and much more to do with real, painful, human needs.

Things like single-parent households. Divorce. Infidelity. Addictions. Lifestyle choices. Music and cultural icons that should be challenged for being ungodly and unhealthy.

OK, so I'm an idealist. I'll admit that. And I am "only" a student. Guilty again.

But somewhere, somehow, we in the Church need to stop pitting men and women against each other and start considering how to build up the Church together, and not compartmentalize it into special interest groups. It doesn't matter who gets more attention. Or where they sit. Or who is in charge. It really doesn't.

It does matter Who we are there to worship and serve. Somehow, I think we all tend to forget that. And books like Murrow's are part of this "me-serve" mentality.

Rant mode off...

Deb

Jesus said: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”