I can't believe we've almost reached the end of October. It seems like only a week or so ago that Matt was heading back to school, Declan was starting daycare, and RU students were trickling onto campus (and stealing beloved parking spots, but I digress).
Time has eluded us, as it often does, and part of me feels like I've wasted the majority of my favorite season being preoccupied with other things. This week in particular was really trying for us, but as I sit typing this, I feel only thankfulness toward God that he's given us peace and that he always provides.
For those of you who don't know, Matt had the opportunity this year to teach in a different environment than he did last year. Whereas last year he was a traditional classroom teacher of seventh grade math students, this year he's working with two other teachers and a counselor on a project called "a school within a school." In many ways this project is more ministry than teaching, as the students he works with are considered to be "high-risk" by the school system. As you can imagine, this project has been no easy task, especially for a person like Matt, who is genuinely sensitive to the hurt and struggles of other people, and who so longs to help even when he can't.
We are very thankful he has this opportunity, and he prays for and loves his students daily, but man has it been a challenge in some ways. As every teacher gets at times, Matt has been feeling really worn down-- especially so this past week. Which was tough for me to see, because it also happened to be his birthday this week.
In fact, on the day of his birthday we woke up knowing that not only was he going into a full day of teaching (both math and science), but that he also had to leave directly from school to Salem in order to tutor until 7:30, and that he wouldn't be back until past 8:00. It was a long day and not very fun for Matt, despite my best efforts.
We woke up the day after his birthday to find that our plumbing was basically rendered unusable by a clog in the main drain. Which meant that we couldn't take showers, could flush the toilets sparingly, use only enough water to basically wash Declan's cups, and that we couldn't do laundry/run the dishwasher, etc. And that we were going to have to pay to have it fixed, which was a big headache. Oh yeah, and that our bathroom and basement were slightly flooded. Clearly feeling beat down, and just wanting one bright spot left over from the previous day's birthday, Matt asked for his brand new Dallas Cowboys sweatshirt his mom so thoughtfully gave him for his birthday, only to find that, not even having worn it once, Fenway (our puppy) tore the sleeve.
Not a good day. As Matt, honestly close to tears headed out the door for another day of hard work, I could only encourage him with these words, which became our mantra this week: It's time to put our money where our mouths are.
If you know me and Matt, you know that we make no secret of proclaiming the name of Christ. We believe wholeheartedly that He is not a distant and disconnected God, but that He loves us and provides for us daily.
But those things are so much easier to believe in theory. They are easy to say and less easy to feel when daily life feels like just getting through another day with your head above rising water. It's easy to say that Christ will provide for you in every way when you don't have to think about how you're going to pay an unexpected bill and grocery shop all in one week.
And that is why I am so thankful for this week, because God has taken my faith from what was in many ways theoretical, to what is in many ways practical.
In the Sunday school class Matt and I lead (College and Career at Cambria Baptist-- come check it out!), we're going through the book of Hebrews. Recently we've been examining Hebrews 4, which has been really interesting. During this chapter the author describes how God promised the Israelites wandering in the desert rest, but how that rest was really just a small and local rest before the ultimate rest He delivered through Christ. In that same chapter we find out that God's word is alive and active, which means when we read the Bible we don't just see historical events that meant something to the people at the time, but which no longer mean anything to us now, today. God is real and longs to be engaged in our lives, and, contrary to what culture teaches and what Christians unfortunately sometimes affirm, he desires this with everyone, now, today, just as you are.
Even if you disagree with me (I know a lot of you probably do), I just want you all to know that I don't believe in a theoretical God-- one that loves and longs for good and holy people, but who spurns others. The idea of making yourself pure for Christ is preposterous, because we are incapable of it. That's not what he desires. There is nothing too dirty or different, too big or too small for Him.
Our plumbing problem was not too small for God this week. Matt's torn sweatshirt was not menial in his eyes. We have peace not because our problems are solved, but because God does not just exist in the clean-cut aspects of life, but in all of it. And he calls us to have a faith that exists in the same way.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Why I Still Wear My Engagement Ring Even Though The Diamond Is Gone
In a sentence: Because I'll still wear my marriage when the diamond is gone.
On September 18, 2010 Matthew Dunham led me to a mountain top, waited for the sun to rise, and got down on bended knee to present me with a beautiful diamond ring and to ask me to be his wife. I said yes (several times-- I was genuinely shocked), and let him slide the simple but gorgeous ring onto my finger.
I loved that ring. I still do. I loved watching it refract the morning sunlight on our climb down the mountain. I loved seeing it perched on my steering wheel on the drive home. I loved being surprised to see it when I looked down during the first few days of wearing it.
Last weekend the diamond disappeared. I have no idea where it went or how it fell off. I still have the ring, but one of the prongs on the mount is badly misshapen. It doesn't shine in the morning sunlight anymore. When people exclaim shocked sighs upon seeing it, it's no longer to tell me how beautiful it is or to ask me how Matt proposed-- it's to lament that the diamond is gone. I've had a few people suggest I take it off until we can get the diamond replaced (which is seeming more and more unlikely-- our warranty won't cover it), but I haven't. And, the more I think about, I don't think I will.
When I accepted Matt's proposal and, with it, my diamond, I wasn't JUST taking the diamond, but the whole ring. All of it. Forever. Almost every wedding I've ever been to addresses the symbolism of the wedding ring-- the circle, which represents a commitment without an expiration date-- and, as cliche as it's become, I've internalized that, especially lately.
Having been engaged, and having known several people to get engaged, when people ask you to see your ring afterward, they're really asking to see the diamond. They want to know (even if they don't ask) how big it is-- the clarity, the cut, the carat, etc.
It's exciting. It's new. It glimmers.
But, eventually, vows are exchanged and life goes on and people stop caring about your diamond. It becomes common place, something expected and not anticipated, something good but not new; it's remembered as fondly as last year's Christmas presents.
And so does marriage.
That's right, I wrote it out loud. Marriage loses its luster in the same way a diamond does. It stops being as exciting as it was at first. There are moments when it's not as romantic as you always thought it would be. You come back from the honeymoon and life goes on. And you know what? It's okay. Not only is it okay, but it's normal. Not only is it normal, but it's good.
The beauty of marriage is not the diamond but the ring-- the always steady, never ending, durable hunk of metal that endures washing dishes, changing diapers, manual labor, and paying bills-- the nitty gritty every day things that don't go away just because you got married. The diamond is exciting and beautiful and lusty, but the ring endures-- the ring is the promise-- the commitment to keep being, existing as one unit even when it's lack luster.
There are days when I feel like my marriage is a ring without a diamond, and I'm not ashamed or afraid to say that, because it doesn't mean I love Matt less than I should, or that there's something wrong with our marriage. I'm decidedly thankful for those days, because those are the ones when I'm hyper aware of how much I do, in fact, love him. It's on those days that I know I didn't weave my soul with his because it felt good, but that I did so because I see him and love him still; he sees me and loves me still.
I think if more people understood this about marriage-- if we paid more mind to the "ring" than the "diamond"-- we'd stop having unrealistic expectations of our marriages, and we could appreciate the subtle beauty of something plain.
It is for these reasons I won't stop wearing my diamondless ring.
On September 18, 2010 Matthew Dunham led me to a mountain top, waited for the sun to rise, and got down on bended knee to present me with a beautiful diamond ring and to ask me to be his wife. I said yes (several times-- I was genuinely shocked), and let him slide the simple but gorgeous ring onto my finger.
I loved that ring. I still do. I loved watching it refract the morning sunlight on our climb down the mountain. I loved seeing it perched on my steering wheel on the drive home. I loved being surprised to see it when I looked down during the first few days of wearing it.
Last weekend the diamond disappeared. I have no idea where it went or how it fell off. I still have the ring, but one of the prongs on the mount is badly misshapen. It doesn't shine in the morning sunlight anymore. When people exclaim shocked sighs upon seeing it, it's no longer to tell me how beautiful it is or to ask me how Matt proposed-- it's to lament that the diamond is gone. I've had a few people suggest I take it off until we can get the diamond replaced (which is seeming more and more unlikely-- our warranty won't cover it), but I haven't. And, the more I think about, I don't think I will.
When I accepted Matt's proposal and, with it, my diamond, I wasn't JUST taking the diamond, but the whole ring. All of it. Forever. Almost every wedding I've ever been to addresses the symbolism of the wedding ring-- the circle, which represents a commitment without an expiration date-- and, as cliche as it's become, I've internalized that, especially lately.
Having been engaged, and having known several people to get engaged, when people ask you to see your ring afterward, they're really asking to see the diamond. They want to know (even if they don't ask) how big it is-- the clarity, the cut, the carat, etc.
It's exciting. It's new. It glimmers.
But, eventually, vows are exchanged and life goes on and people stop caring about your diamond. It becomes common place, something expected and not anticipated, something good but not new; it's remembered as fondly as last year's Christmas presents.
And so does marriage.
That's right, I wrote it out loud. Marriage loses its luster in the same way a diamond does. It stops being as exciting as it was at first. There are moments when it's not as romantic as you always thought it would be. You come back from the honeymoon and life goes on. And you know what? It's okay. Not only is it okay, but it's normal. Not only is it normal, but it's good.
The beauty of marriage is not the diamond but the ring-- the always steady, never ending, durable hunk of metal that endures washing dishes, changing diapers, manual labor, and paying bills-- the nitty gritty every day things that don't go away just because you got married. The diamond is exciting and beautiful and lusty, but the ring endures-- the ring is the promise-- the commitment to keep being, existing as one unit even when it's lack luster.
There are days when I feel like my marriage is a ring without a diamond, and I'm not ashamed or afraid to say that, because it doesn't mean I love Matt less than I should, or that there's something wrong with our marriage. I'm decidedly thankful for those days, because those are the ones when I'm hyper aware of how much I do, in fact, love him. It's on those days that I know I didn't weave my soul with his because it felt good, but that I did so because I see him and love him still; he sees me and loves me still.
I think if more people understood this about marriage-- if we paid more mind to the "ring" than the "diamond"-- we'd stop having unrealistic expectations of our marriages, and we could appreciate the subtle beauty of something plain.
It is for these reasons I won't stop wearing my diamondless ring.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
This Post Is Not About Miley Cyrus
Nor is it about Robin Thicke, though, to be fair, I'll probably reference both of them.
For the past five days I've been inundated with opinions regarding Miley Cyrus's performance-- it was out of line because she used to be Hannah Montana. It was borderline pornographic. It's not Miley we should be disgusted with, but Robin Thicke. Eventually it all turned into a steady stream of "blah-blah-blah" in my mind.
When I came home from work, checked my facebook, and saw the same article shared by five or six of my friends, I tapped into my inner passive aggressive and posted something "snarky" about it on my newsfeed. In retrospect, I was neither clever nor fair. People are entitled to post their opinions on hot topics, and I shouldn't be annoyed by this. Upon further reflection, I don't think I was really annoyed at the content of any of the articles, necessarily; I didn't read anything that I really disagreed with-- and, to be honest, after the third or fourth article I stopped reading anyway. My point, however, is that I was not annoyed by anything I saw in these articles but by what was not in these articles.
It seems like the issue has divided our population into two camps: We should be disgusted with Miley Cyrus vs We should be disgusted with Robin Thicke. What started as an issue of "modesty" (I use this word loosely, because it doesn't quite capture what the general public took issue with) turned into an issue of feminism. Bloggers are writing letters to the world's collective sons; talk show hosts are banning Hannah Montana from the TV.
But back to the title of this entry, which is (ironically) "This Post Is Not About Miley Cyrus," because, though I'm sure it seems like it is, it's not.
I didn't watch the VMA's. For those of you who also did not watch the VMA's and have (somehow) not heard about all of the to-do, here's a brief summary (and then I promise I'll go back to NOT talking about Miley Cyrus): She performed her new hit single, which is basically about partying however she wants to, alongside Robin Thicke, who performed his new hit single, which is basically about women claiming their freedom by unleashing their inner sexuality (with a few Fat Albert references scattered throughout-- you get the point). To spare you the details, to say it was graphic is an understatement. If you're tempted to look it up (as I was), don't-- it's honestly kind of gross. A foam finger was involved, as were gigantic teddy bears. Spare yourself.
The performance's response was collective awe/disgust. It literally left The Fresh Prince of Belair and his family with dropped jaws. You can imagine the backlash was pretty fierce come Monday morning. Which resulted in backlash against the backlash, cries of stifled femininity, and the obvious question, "where does Robin Thicke fit into all of this?"
Here's why this post is not about Miley Cyrus:
This is not a new issue.
For literally thousands of years, this issue has been manifesting itself in our societies. And it's neither the fault of woman, who decided whimsically to exploit her body (that's sarcastic), nor the fault of man, who decided selfishly to be sexually driven (also sarcastic).
From the beginning of time men were created with the desire to be sexually intimate. Women were created with the desire to feel emotionally intimate. (I'm not saying there's no room for variation-- that a man can't desire emotional affirmation, and that a woman can't be sexual, nor am I suggesting it's unnatural for this to happen. I'm trying to say that, on the whole, a woman longs to feel special, unique, and coveted, and that a man longs to manifest these things physically.)
Now that we've discussed the birds and the bees... let me explain why I think this is important.
Somewhere along the line, women figured out that men are sexually attracted to women, and that, when they are, they tend to give the women to whom they are attracted attention. Women, longing to be affirmed-- to feel special and coveted-- reacted to this by becoming as desirable as possible. And it's a cycle that has been spinning out of control for a very, very long time.
Have you ever noticed the advertisements featuring products that appeal to a mostly male demographic? Almost all of them feature women in sexually exploitative ways.
Have you ever noticed the advertisements featuring products that appeal to a mostly female demographic? Do they feature men in the same sexually exploitative manners? You'd think-- but they don't. They likewise feature mostly women-- not necessarily in a sexual manner, but in an overly glamorized manner-- in a way that suggests "this is the way you should look, speak, behave."
And all of it feeds into the cycle of "women look like this; men, pay attention to this."
We saw this cycle for what it was at the VMA's on Sunday night. A girl trying to be noticed, and a man giving her attention.
So, to reiterate, this post is not about the VMA's or Miley Cyrus or Robin Thicke. That's not news, and we can't understand the issue by only focusing on why women sometimes behave like Miley did, or why men pay mind to and partake in what Robin Thicke did. They're not separate issues. One does not shoulder more responsibility than the other. The issues are as entwined as the water cycle. We desperately need a drought.
Monday, July 22, 2013
A More Detailed Update On Declan's Procedure
Hey all!
I just wanted to take a minute to give a more detailed update on Declan's procedure and the overall diagnosis (or lack thereof) of what's causing his breathing issues.
Let me begin by saying that Declan is very healthy! We're asking for prayers because it's obviously a concern, but this is not affecting his overall health at the time (for which we're really grateful), and we don't want anyone to worry unnecessarily.
The procedure they did today is called a direct laryngoscopy. They actually did something else too, but I forgot what it's called. The whole thing was essentially to check for any obstruction of his airway-- something that might explain the stridor (which is the gasping sound he makes when he breathes sometimes).
It's always a little difficult for me to update on something I don't completely understand, but I'll try to explain what we were told the best I can.
Coming into today, we knew that there were basically two situations the doctor was checking for, the first of which is called a subglottic hemangioma, and the second of which is called laryngomalacia. A hemangioma is the little red "birth mark" (they actually don't appear until a few weeks after birth) on Declan's neck. A subglottic hemangioma is a hemangioma that grows not only outside the skin, but underneath the skin in the airway. This condition is pretty rare, so I wasn't really expecting this outcome, but because of the location of DJ's hemangioma they had to check. The second condition, laryngomalacia, literally means soft larynx. Usually the larynx is rigid, like a straw, but sometimes it can be softer than usual in children, causing stridor. This condition is fairly common and usually not a big deal-- kids almost always grow out of it.
I felt sure coming into today that they'd go in, scope the area out, and come out saying "yep-- it's definitely laryngomalacia; he'll grow out of it-- no big deal."
Fortunately and unfortunately, they didn't notice any major blockage of his airway. They said it narrows slightly, but nothing that could really account for his stridor. This is good, in a way, because we obviously don't want there to be an obstruction, but also annoying, in another way, because there's obviously something causing issues for him and we don't yet know what that is.
I'm a little confused because I thought for sure if they didn't note an obstruction (that would be from the hemangioma), they'd chalk it up to laryngomalacia and that would be that. So I was surprised when the doctor told me his symptoms don't sound consistent with laryngomalacia-- it seemed like they did last time-- but I really like him and trust his opinion, so I'll trust him on this. Not to mention he has a degree in medicine and I can basically just measure out correct doses of Tylenol.
The other thing he mentioned was the fact that, even when Declan was sedated and on a breathing tube, they couldn't get his oxygen up to 100%. He said it's nothing to be worried about-- his levels were around 97%-- but that usually they can get children up to 100%, especially while on oxygen. This also indicated that there might be a bigger issue.
He referred Declan to a pulmonologist (lung doctor) in Roanoke. We go for an appointment next Tuesday. Hopefully it's a fairly painless process. I'm worried that we're putting him through all of this over nothing-- like I said, he's a very healthy baby (toddler-- oh gosh)-- but I know that breathing is nothing to mess around with, and I'm grateful for doctors who err on the side of caution. If there is a bigger issue, I'd rather know about it now than later.
Declan was an absolute trooper today. He didn't cry once when they were taking his blood, and considering how confused he must have been after the procedure, he handled it pretty well. It was so tough to see him go through all of this, especially knowing we're not really any closer to knowing what's wrong with him. Pray for me and Matt as we take him to his appointment next week-- that we'll trust the doctors taking care of Declan, but also that we'll have enough discernment to know what's necessary and what's not.
I just wanted to take a minute to give a more detailed update on Declan's procedure and the overall diagnosis (or lack thereof) of what's causing his breathing issues.
Let me begin by saying that Declan is very healthy! We're asking for prayers because it's obviously a concern, but this is not affecting his overall health at the time (for which we're really grateful), and we don't want anyone to worry unnecessarily.
The procedure they did today is called a direct laryngoscopy. They actually did something else too, but I forgot what it's called. The whole thing was essentially to check for any obstruction of his airway-- something that might explain the stridor (which is the gasping sound he makes when he breathes sometimes).
It's always a little difficult for me to update on something I don't completely understand, but I'll try to explain what we were told the best I can.
Coming into today, we knew that there were basically two situations the doctor was checking for, the first of which is called a subglottic hemangioma, and the second of which is called laryngomalacia. A hemangioma is the little red "birth mark" (they actually don't appear until a few weeks after birth) on Declan's neck. A subglottic hemangioma is a hemangioma that grows not only outside the skin, but underneath the skin in the airway. This condition is pretty rare, so I wasn't really expecting this outcome, but because of the location of DJ's hemangioma they had to check. The second condition, laryngomalacia, literally means soft larynx. Usually the larynx is rigid, like a straw, but sometimes it can be softer than usual in children, causing stridor. This condition is fairly common and usually not a big deal-- kids almost always grow out of it.
I felt sure coming into today that they'd go in, scope the area out, and come out saying "yep-- it's definitely laryngomalacia; he'll grow out of it-- no big deal."
Fortunately and unfortunately, they didn't notice any major blockage of his airway. They said it narrows slightly, but nothing that could really account for his stridor. This is good, in a way, because we obviously don't want there to be an obstruction, but also annoying, in another way, because there's obviously something causing issues for him and we don't yet know what that is.
I'm a little confused because I thought for sure if they didn't note an obstruction (that would be from the hemangioma), they'd chalk it up to laryngomalacia and that would be that. So I was surprised when the doctor told me his symptoms don't sound consistent with laryngomalacia-- it seemed like they did last time-- but I really like him and trust his opinion, so I'll trust him on this. Not to mention he has a degree in medicine and I can basically just measure out correct doses of Tylenol.
The other thing he mentioned was the fact that, even when Declan was sedated and on a breathing tube, they couldn't get his oxygen up to 100%. He said it's nothing to be worried about-- his levels were around 97%-- but that usually they can get children up to 100%, especially while on oxygen. This also indicated that there might be a bigger issue.
He referred Declan to a pulmonologist (lung doctor) in Roanoke. We go for an appointment next Tuesday. Hopefully it's a fairly painless process. I'm worried that we're putting him through all of this over nothing-- like I said, he's a very healthy baby (toddler-- oh gosh)-- but I know that breathing is nothing to mess around with, and I'm grateful for doctors who err on the side of caution. If there is a bigger issue, I'd rather know about it now than later.
Declan was an absolute trooper today. He didn't cry once when they were taking his blood, and considering how confused he must have been after the procedure, he handled it pretty well. It was so tough to see him go through all of this, especially knowing we're not really any closer to knowing what's wrong with him. Pray for me and Matt as we take him to his appointment next week-- that we'll trust the doctors taking care of Declan, but also that we'll have enough discernment to know what's necessary and what's not.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
A Mostly Declan Oriented Update
This summer has been absolutely flying by! Declan is officially one year old, which is nuts. I can distinctly remember this time last year-- how amazed we were by the newness of our little boy, and how overwhelmed we were with at times. It seems like he's doing something new or different every day now. We are so thankful for our little family.
It unfortunately rained on the day of Declan's birthday party, but we managed. Even worse was the fact that he got sick that morning and was pretty iffy the whole day. By bed time he was miserable and didn't sleep for the next two nights. (Well, he slept, but not much.) A trip to the doctor and an antibiotic later, and he's feeling much better now! Matt and I were so thankful for everyone who braved the rain and our cramped little living room to celebrate Declan's first year.
Matt's parents came to visit the week leading up to DJ's party, which was awesome. It was so nice to see them and to get all the Dunham cousins together!
Matt has been Mr. Mom this summer while I've been working. (He gets the summers off as a teacher). He was made to be a dad. I love that Declan already so admires him.
We take Declan to have his procedure done next Monday (the 22nd). I'm of course a little nervous to have him put under, but I'm relieved to know we'll finally have some definite answers to his breathing, because it's been getting worse. I'm hoping the doctor sees what's going on and tells us it's something he'll just grow out of, but if not, I'm glad we're looking into it and will know how to help him.
Declan now says the following "words" (his pronunciation still needs some work, haha): Dada, mama (very sparingly-- like hardly ever. No worries, son, I only gave you life), headbutt (all the time), and up (he says 'uh' and lifts his arms up) when he wants to be picked up. He also says "ffffff" when he sees Fenway.
He's getting so smart! On a more contradictory note, he ate dog food on Saturday evening. More dog food than vegetables, actually. (I in no way endorsed this activity-- can't even do three minutes worth of dishes anymore!)
I wrote the following on DJ's birthday
On Raising Declan James
You wear a piece of both of us
everyday, forever.
You are tethered by a rubber band
to the treasured pieces of my soul.
I am folded into the dimples
that dress your smile, wrapped around your baby giggle.
All the best parts of me
walk and move and breathe now--
they live outside my being--
revived at last because you use
my eyes to see the world anew.
I feel Cynicism release its cold grip
on me and breathe
greedy gulps of Light and Color;
a deep seeded hope blooms inside me,
coaxes and entices me
to see through big brown eyes
that I wore first but you
wear better.
We are fettered;
you wear a piece of both of us,
every day, forever,
and the honor is all mine, my treasure.
It unfortunately rained on the day of Declan's birthday party, but we managed. Even worse was the fact that he got sick that morning and was pretty iffy the whole day. By bed time he was miserable and didn't sleep for the next two nights. (Well, he slept, but not much.) A trip to the doctor and an antibiotic later, and he's feeling much better now! Matt and I were so thankful for everyone who braved the rain and our cramped little living room to celebrate Declan's first year.
Matt's parents came to visit the week leading up to DJ's party, which was awesome. It was so nice to see them and to get all the Dunham cousins together!
Matt has been Mr. Mom this summer while I've been working. (He gets the summers off as a teacher). He was made to be a dad. I love that Declan already so admires him.
We take Declan to have his procedure done next Monday (the 22nd). I'm of course a little nervous to have him put under, but I'm relieved to know we'll finally have some definite answers to his breathing, because it's been getting worse. I'm hoping the doctor sees what's going on and tells us it's something he'll just grow out of, but if not, I'm glad we're looking into it and will know how to help him.
Declan now says the following "words" (his pronunciation still needs some work, haha): Dada, mama (very sparingly-- like hardly ever. No worries, son, I only gave you life), headbutt (all the time), and up (he says 'uh' and lifts his arms up) when he wants to be picked up. He also says "ffffff" when he sees Fenway.
He's getting so smart! On a more contradictory note, he ate dog food on Saturday evening. More dog food than vegetables, actually. (I in no way endorsed this activity-- can't even do three minutes worth of dishes anymore!)
I wrote the following on DJ's birthday
On Raising Declan James
You wear a piece of both of us
everyday, forever.
You are tethered by a rubber band
to the treasured pieces of my soul.
I am folded into the dimples
that dress your smile, wrapped around your baby giggle.
All the best parts of me
walk and move and breathe now--
they live outside my being--
revived at last because you use
my eyes to see the world anew.
I feel Cynicism release its cold grip
on me and breathe
greedy gulps of Light and Color;
a deep seeded hope blooms inside me,
coaxes and entices me
to see through big brown eyes
that I wore first but you
wear better.
We are fettered;
you wear a piece of both of us,
every day, forever,
and the honor is all mine, my treasure.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
An Issue of Sexism and Humor: I Am Not Amused
I've been fighting the urge to angry blog for the past 24 hours, and now that I feel more level headed and less "come at me, bro!" I still feel compelled to write this blog.
Before I begin, let me give this disclaimer: I'm going to summarize an issue I encountered via facebook yesterday. I'm not a proponent of passive aggressively using the internet to start or fan disputes. I think it's immature and un-Christ-like. That being said, I still feel compelled to write about this because it's an example of a bigger issue that's been bothering me for awhile now.
As you've all probably heard, the George Zimmerman case went to trial this past week. The jury, which is comprised of all women, started deliberating yesterday afternoon.
Two hours into deliberation, they asked the court to provide them with a numbered list of evidence. Shortly after this happened, someone I barely know on facebook (we're no longer friends, not because of this instance, but because I met him once at Liberty and I quite frankly didn't even realize we were still friends on facebook) made the following remark: "Two hours into deliberation and you're just NOW asking for evidence? What have you been talking about all this time? #women #omgiloveyouroutfitwhodoesyourhair? (To translate: Omg I love your outfit who does your hair?)
Let me put this disclaimer: Though I really don't know this individual very well, I do know enough about him to know that he is a very kind hearted person, and that he would never intentionally belittle anyone. This is not your run of the mill, I'm going to put people down because I can, person. He even helps lead a youth group (something I really would expect him to be perfect for). That being said, the comment really took me off guard.
I recognized immediately that it was just supposed to be a joke. I wasn't supposed to read anything into it. He wasn't seriously trying to belittle these jurors, nor was he trying to belittle women in general.
But I think that's what bothered me most about it. He wasn't TRYING to do any of those things. He was just trying to be funny. And he was, to most people.
That really bothers me. It has bothered me probably more than it should for the past day. Every time I think about it I shake my head in annoyance. Not necessarily at him, because, as I said, this is a good guy, but at the fact that, in this day in age, comments like this are funny.
Maybe I should have just continued with my day, taken him off of my friends list (again, because I wasn't sure why I was friends with him still anyway) and let the issue rest. But if you know me you know I obviously didn't do that.
I pointed out that, though I'm sure he only meant it as a joke, that it could be easily taken as really sexist. Here are the responses I got:
First from someone who laughed me off and said something to the effect of "oh please, girls say horrible things about guys all the time. We need to have our fun too."
And you know what? He's right. Women do berate and belittle men with frequency, and as a wife and the mother of a little boy, and, honestly just as a human being, that has always bothered me too. I told him that it's not fun when women do it and it's not fun when men do it.
I left for dinner and came back a few hours later. When I checked my facebook I found an overwhelming response, mostly from other women.
And none of them agreed with what I said. My opinion was sarcastically belittled or laughed off. He was encouraged to present the joke as part of an "SNL skit" (something he probably does with the youth group, I would guess.) I was mocked by women who pretended to likewise be offended and then laughed. The person who wrote the comment to begin with said something to the effect of "we're way to easily offended in America." Another person wrote "America: where the majority are terrorized by the minority."
Firstly, I don't believe I "terrorized" anyone. I pointed out in a kind way that his comment had the potential to be taken in an offensive manner. I reiterated that I'm sure it was never intended to be malicious, but that I just felt compelled to bring it to his attention. I agreed that women shouldn't do this to men. I did not reply to any of the several people who replied to his status.
Am I angry? A little. Not really anymore. Not at him or any of the other people who replied, anyway. But I am angry at the state of not just America, but the Church, in many ways.
Over and over again I see attitudes that spell out "if you're offended, that's your problem, not mine. It's not my responsibility to not be offensive."
Actually, it is, in some ways. I'm not suggesting that people should or could cease to have opinions that offend other people-- nor that you shouldn't express an opinion if offends other people. That's part of life and, while it's sometimes unfortunate, it's inevitable. But this was something entirely different. This was simply a "joke" (I'll get to that in a minute) that took advantage of a stereotype for the sake of humor. It was not necessary. It didn't express something vital. It was for the sake of humor only. James 3 urges Christians to be mindful of the importance of words-- to realize that what you say matters and cannot be taken back. It encourages Christians to be considerate of the people around them. So when I hear Christians say "it's not my problem that you're offended" over something like this, I want to pull my hair out. We are ABSOLUTELY called by God to watch our words-- to be peacemakers. Again, I'm not suggesting we compromise the message of the Gospel because it's offensive at times, but I am saying that you're tacky jokes are not only unnecessary but sinful in some ways.
As for the comment being a joke, that frustrates me too-- for several reasons:
1. This is not a hypothetical group of women deliberating on a hypothetical case. A 16 year old boy was actually murdered. His life is gone. And the fate of the man who killed him (I'm not here to debate if it was self defense or not) is on the line. His comment was not directed at nobody, it was directed at real live people who are in a horribly difficult situation.
2. He's using sexism for humor. #women #omg i love your outfit who does your hair. He is proposing that the jury is incompetent on the basis that they're women. I understand he probably doesn't actually esteem women in that way-- he was trying to be funny-- but particularly as a church leader I would expect him to be mindful that he is (whether or not he meant it this way) sending the message that women are incapable of handling serious business.
If it was a group of all black people and he'd said "What have they been talking about? #who does your weave?" it would be very obviously offensive. In fact, I'd wager he never would have made such a comment. And if he had, I'd wager nobody would be justifying it.
We'd care if it was racist. So why don't we care that it was sexist? My mind was just seriously blown when I was the only one not willing to laugh at this joke. It perpetuates a belittling attitude toward women. It is specifically making fun of six, real people. It is making light of a murder case.
But it was just for humor, so it's somehow okay. I'm sick of people putting humor above tact and consideration. And I'm sick of the attitude that claims we're not responsible for whether or not we offend somebody. To some degree, we are.
Before I begin, let me give this disclaimer: I'm going to summarize an issue I encountered via facebook yesterday. I'm not a proponent of passive aggressively using the internet to start or fan disputes. I think it's immature and un-Christ-like. That being said, I still feel compelled to write about this because it's an example of a bigger issue that's been bothering me for awhile now.
As you've all probably heard, the George Zimmerman case went to trial this past week. The jury, which is comprised of all women, started deliberating yesterday afternoon.
Two hours into deliberation, they asked the court to provide them with a numbered list of evidence. Shortly after this happened, someone I barely know on facebook (we're no longer friends, not because of this instance, but because I met him once at Liberty and I quite frankly didn't even realize we were still friends on facebook) made the following remark: "Two hours into deliberation and you're just NOW asking for evidence? What have you been talking about all this time? #women #omgiloveyouroutfitwhodoesyourhair? (To translate: Omg I love your outfit who does your hair?)
Let me put this disclaimer: Though I really don't know this individual very well, I do know enough about him to know that he is a very kind hearted person, and that he would never intentionally belittle anyone. This is not your run of the mill, I'm going to put people down because I can, person. He even helps lead a youth group (something I really would expect him to be perfect for). That being said, the comment really took me off guard.
I recognized immediately that it was just supposed to be a joke. I wasn't supposed to read anything into it. He wasn't seriously trying to belittle these jurors, nor was he trying to belittle women in general.
But I think that's what bothered me most about it. He wasn't TRYING to do any of those things. He was just trying to be funny. And he was, to most people.
That really bothers me. It has bothered me probably more than it should for the past day. Every time I think about it I shake my head in annoyance. Not necessarily at him, because, as I said, this is a good guy, but at the fact that, in this day in age, comments like this are funny.
Maybe I should have just continued with my day, taken him off of my friends list (again, because I wasn't sure why I was friends with him still anyway) and let the issue rest. But if you know me you know I obviously didn't do that.
I pointed out that, though I'm sure he only meant it as a joke, that it could be easily taken as really sexist. Here are the responses I got:
First from someone who laughed me off and said something to the effect of "oh please, girls say horrible things about guys all the time. We need to have our fun too."
And you know what? He's right. Women do berate and belittle men with frequency, and as a wife and the mother of a little boy, and, honestly just as a human being, that has always bothered me too. I told him that it's not fun when women do it and it's not fun when men do it.
I left for dinner and came back a few hours later. When I checked my facebook I found an overwhelming response, mostly from other women.
And none of them agreed with what I said. My opinion was sarcastically belittled or laughed off. He was encouraged to present the joke as part of an "SNL skit" (something he probably does with the youth group, I would guess.) I was mocked by women who pretended to likewise be offended and then laughed. The person who wrote the comment to begin with said something to the effect of "we're way to easily offended in America." Another person wrote "America: where the majority are terrorized by the minority."
Firstly, I don't believe I "terrorized" anyone. I pointed out in a kind way that his comment had the potential to be taken in an offensive manner. I reiterated that I'm sure it was never intended to be malicious, but that I just felt compelled to bring it to his attention. I agreed that women shouldn't do this to men. I did not reply to any of the several people who replied to his status.
Am I angry? A little. Not really anymore. Not at him or any of the other people who replied, anyway. But I am angry at the state of not just America, but the Church, in many ways.
Over and over again I see attitudes that spell out "if you're offended, that's your problem, not mine. It's not my responsibility to not be offensive."
Actually, it is, in some ways. I'm not suggesting that people should or could cease to have opinions that offend other people-- nor that you shouldn't express an opinion if offends other people. That's part of life and, while it's sometimes unfortunate, it's inevitable. But this was something entirely different. This was simply a "joke" (I'll get to that in a minute) that took advantage of a stereotype for the sake of humor. It was not necessary. It didn't express something vital. It was for the sake of humor only. James 3 urges Christians to be mindful of the importance of words-- to realize that what you say matters and cannot be taken back. It encourages Christians to be considerate of the people around them. So when I hear Christians say "it's not my problem that you're offended" over something like this, I want to pull my hair out. We are ABSOLUTELY called by God to watch our words-- to be peacemakers. Again, I'm not suggesting we compromise the message of the Gospel because it's offensive at times, but I am saying that you're tacky jokes are not only unnecessary but sinful in some ways.
As for the comment being a joke, that frustrates me too-- for several reasons:
1. This is not a hypothetical group of women deliberating on a hypothetical case. A 16 year old boy was actually murdered. His life is gone. And the fate of the man who killed him (I'm not here to debate if it was self defense or not) is on the line. His comment was not directed at nobody, it was directed at real live people who are in a horribly difficult situation.
2. He's using sexism for humor. #women #omg i love your outfit who does your hair. He is proposing that the jury is incompetent on the basis that they're women. I understand he probably doesn't actually esteem women in that way-- he was trying to be funny-- but particularly as a church leader I would expect him to be mindful that he is (whether or not he meant it this way) sending the message that women are incapable of handling serious business.
If it was a group of all black people and he'd said "What have they been talking about? #who does your weave?" it would be very obviously offensive. In fact, I'd wager he never would have made such a comment. And if he had, I'd wager nobody would be justifying it.
We'd care if it was racist. So why don't we care that it was sexist? My mind was just seriously blown when I was the only one not willing to laugh at this joke. It perpetuates a belittling attitude toward women. It is specifically making fun of six, real people. It is making light of a murder case.
But it was just for humor, so it's somehow okay. I'm sick of people putting humor above tact and consideration. And I'm sick of the attitude that claims we're not responsible for whether or not we offend somebody. To some degree, we are.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
God Does Not Exist To Make You Happy
"And we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to His purpose."
Romans 8:28
"God works all things together for my good."
Christian pop culture's interpretation of Romans 8:28
In recent months, I have found it extremely difficult to listen to Christian radio stations-- not because it's cheesy (though it often is) or because a lot of the songs sound the same (though they do), but because the messages are becoming more and more self serving, and less and less God centered, and, frankly, I can get a more musically diverse version of that on secular radio stations.
Here's what I mean: As I was driving home from the store today I flipped to the Christian station I usually listen to and heard the following lyrics: "God works all things together for my good." Over and over and over again. And all I could think was, 'actually, that's theologically inaccurate.' And it's been nagging me all day, not just because it's erroneous and I enjoy being a contrarian, but because it's a misconception that perpetuates a lot of even bigger misconceptions about who God is.
It's not just this song either. I hear the same thing in almost every other Christian song I hear lately-- maybe not always in the same way, but the underlying point is the same: God exists to work things out for my good, and our relationship is very much dependent on how I'm feeling.
And I can see why this mentality is a popular one; who wouldn't want God as their personal assistant? But it's a dangerous misconception that ultimately prevents you from seeing who God is, and eventually encourages disillusionment with God.
The idea that God exists to please you (or that He'll work everything out for your own personal good) is fine and dandy as long as everything is going well. You can shout alleluia's and post happy-go-lucky facebook statuses regarding how good He is to you. But what happens when something doesn't go well? If we believe that God is supposed to be working everything out for our good, it's easy to feel bitter toward God when something bad happens. But Christians have an answer for that, too. Instead of taking a step back and realizing that, just maybe, we've been misinterpreting this verse, we justify it in another way: God is just testing me; this pain will eventually lead to something better.
I don't believe that pain is a bridge to a happy ending. I don't believe that it was an original part of God's plan, and I don't believe He intentionally puts us through pain to achieve growth or to teach us a lesson. That's not to say that growing will always be easy, because it won't, but Christian's, as a rule of thumb, have a habit of assigning God's name to bad things and attaching Romans 8:28 to it for good measure-- as if to say, just trust in the end result.
All of this changes, however, when we take a deeper look at what Romans 8:28 actually says, because it isn't "He works all things together for my good."
Firstly, the Bible never says for YOUR good-- it says for the good of those who love Him. He's not referring to one person, necessarily, but to a group of people. And if you notice, the verse doesn't stop at "those who love Him," but continues on to say "those who are called according to His purpose." I know this verse is the center of way too much debate between Calvinists and Everyone Else, but here's how I see it: He will work things out for those who love Him, and who are working toward God's will.
Wait a minute, Val, that doesn't sound like God is promising me He'll ensure I score a recording contract/win the lottery/do whatever I want to do.
That's because He isn't; God promises a lot of things, but He doesn't promise to give you whatever you want. He doesn't even promise to always make you happy. This makes a lot more sense. Now, when something goes wrong, we're not as baffled as to why that is. We don't have to immediately wonder what part of God's plan this is-- maybe it wasn't a part of His plan at all. Maybe it's a result of the fact that we live in a fallen world, and so tragic, unfair things happen sometimes. Maybe it's just not what He's planning for your life, and therefore not the right thing. Maybe your motivation is a selfish one.
I'm not trying to say that the artist who wrote this song (don't even know who it was) doesn't understand what Romans 8:28 is actually saying, but he makes it easy for people who listen to his song to misinterpret it. And, honestly, it fits right into the current Christian culture, which only strives to understand God as it pertains to themselves.
There is a God outside your realm of perspective, and if you only ever try to see Him from where you're standing, you will only ever see a very limited God.
Romans 8:28
"God works all things together for my good."
Christian pop culture's interpretation of Romans 8:28
In recent months, I have found it extremely difficult to listen to Christian radio stations-- not because it's cheesy (though it often is) or because a lot of the songs sound the same (though they do), but because the messages are becoming more and more self serving, and less and less God centered, and, frankly, I can get a more musically diverse version of that on secular radio stations.
Here's what I mean: As I was driving home from the store today I flipped to the Christian station I usually listen to and heard the following lyrics: "God works all things together for my good." Over and over and over again. And all I could think was, 'actually, that's theologically inaccurate.' And it's been nagging me all day, not just because it's erroneous and I enjoy being a contrarian, but because it's a misconception that perpetuates a lot of even bigger misconceptions about who God is.
It's not just this song either. I hear the same thing in almost every other Christian song I hear lately-- maybe not always in the same way, but the underlying point is the same: God exists to work things out for my good, and our relationship is very much dependent on how I'm feeling.
And I can see why this mentality is a popular one; who wouldn't want God as their personal assistant? But it's a dangerous misconception that ultimately prevents you from seeing who God is, and eventually encourages disillusionment with God.
The idea that God exists to please you (or that He'll work everything out for your own personal good) is fine and dandy as long as everything is going well. You can shout alleluia's and post happy-go-lucky facebook statuses regarding how good He is to you. But what happens when something doesn't go well? If we believe that God is supposed to be working everything out for our good, it's easy to feel bitter toward God when something bad happens. But Christians have an answer for that, too. Instead of taking a step back and realizing that, just maybe, we've been misinterpreting this verse, we justify it in another way: God is just testing me; this pain will eventually lead to something better.
I don't believe that pain is a bridge to a happy ending. I don't believe that it was an original part of God's plan, and I don't believe He intentionally puts us through pain to achieve growth or to teach us a lesson. That's not to say that growing will always be easy, because it won't, but Christian's, as a rule of thumb, have a habit of assigning God's name to bad things and attaching Romans 8:28 to it for good measure-- as if to say, just trust in the end result.
All of this changes, however, when we take a deeper look at what Romans 8:28 actually says, because it isn't "He works all things together for my good."
Firstly, the Bible never says for YOUR good-- it says for the good of those who love Him. He's not referring to one person, necessarily, but to a group of people. And if you notice, the verse doesn't stop at "those who love Him," but continues on to say "those who are called according to His purpose." I know this verse is the center of way too much debate between Calvinists and Everyone Else, but here's how I see it: He will work things out for those who love Him, and who are working toward God's will.
Wait a minute, Val, that doesn't sound like God is promising me He'll ensure I score a recording contract/win the lottery/do whatever I want to do.
That's because He isn't; God promises a lot of things, but He doesn't promise to give you whatever you want. He doesn't even promise to always make you happy. This makes a lot more sense. Now, when something goes wrong, we're not as baffled as to why that is. We don't have to immediately wonder what part of God's plan this is-- maybe it wasn't a part of His plan at all. Maybe it's a result of the fact that we live in a fallen world, and so tragic, unfair things happen sometimes. Maybe it's just not what He's planning for your life, and therefore not the right thing. Maybe your motivation is a selfish one.
I'm not trying to say that the artist who wrote this song (don't even know who it was) doesn't understand what Romans 8:28 is actually saying, but he makes it easy for people who listen to his song to misinterpret it. And, honestly, it fits right into the current Christian culture, which only strives to understand God as it pertains to themselves.
There is a God outside your realm of perspective, and if you only ever try to see Him from where you're standing, you will only ever see a very limited God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)