Recently, our office discovered John Piper's podcast on whether it is "okay" to read a commentary written by a woman. We also discovered a few articles written in response to it, my favorite being Rachel Pietka's "Hey John Piper, Is My Femininity Showing?" I suggest you listen to Piper's podcast, and perhaps peruse Pietka's article before finishing this post. I know, that makes this even longer. My apologies.
Piper has stated that he believes it is okay to read a commentary written by a woman because she is not bodily present. He says that what Paul is saying in I Timothy 2:12 is that women are not to have authority over men, not that she is "incompetent." (I think one of the most baffling things about this podcast is that Piper actually explains that women can have thoughts...) He says that when she is present, she is directly pressing on the man (my paraphrase) just like a drill sergeant does. Instead, Piper says her authority should be like a city planner, because she hasn't imposed her femaleness upon the man, but is still guiding him.
There are so many things I could say about my concern for how Piper views leadership in general, but that's an entirely different post.
What Piper's argument comes down to is that it is not the woman's thoughts, the woman's ability to learn or to teach, or the woman's guidance in general that is the problem. The problem is the woman's body.
I'll let you read Pietka's article about how incredibly degrading this is to women. She does a very well-researched job of pointing out the implications of Piper's "no-body" views. What came up most in our office discussion was actually how much like Gnosticism this argument sounds.
Gnosticism was a belief that permeated early Christian understanding, teaching that there is a very important difference between the body and the soul. Gnostics believed that the body, the earth, and anything material was evil. It was created by the Demiurge, the lower deity, and that anything material needed to be suppressed. Because of this, Gnostic Christians began to demonize any material goods, desires, etc. The belief goes back far enough to see Paul teaching against it in his epistles, and is later directly refuted by the Nicene Creed.
Orthodox theology teaches us that God created us as embodied creatures. He created a physical world, material things, and bodily functions and desires. To be physical is how God intended it, before sin entered the world. Sin, then, is not a thing lurking about, but a change in our direction. It is to desire that which is not God. It is to follow a path that is not God's path. It is not the physical world. We are created in God's image (the Imago Dei), and in the end we will be physical beings on a physical earth.
However, as we teach our students, Gnosticism has not died out. There are a lot of things Christians teach that are rooted in Gnosticism rather than in Scripture. Things specifically related to the body (sex, usually), things about this earth being unimportant, and our usual depiction of eternity as being a spiritual after life in clouds and white robes with harps. (Personally, I have always wondered why we were supposed to look forward to the most boring afterlife ever, so I'm pretty grateful this isn't true.)
Piper's podcast demonstrates the permeation of Gnosticism in our view of women as well. His argument is that women's minds, our souls, are fine. Don't worry about them. (Though he does add in a caveat that if reading a commentary by a woman makes you uncomfortable, go ahead and throw it away. Wouldn't want to learn from someone who makes you uncomfortable. While you're at it, you should probably throw away all your books. Writers are not comfortable people.) Women "have thoughts." They can teach you things, indirectly. Like a city planner, women can guide you from the safety of not seeing them.
It's the body of a woman that is the problem. Piper asserts that the reason a woman's physical presence is so disturbing is because it will remind you that you are, in fact, a man. Not that you are engendered in your personality, but that you are a man physically. That you being a man physically means you have physical reactions to specific things. Those physical reactions are sinful, and you need to avoid them. Things he is saying: 1) Sin is in the physical. 2) Sin is to be avoided. Things he is not saying: 1) You are sinful. 2) You must avoid sinning. Do you see the difference? This, friends, is Gnosticism at it's finest.
I know by now it is pretty obvious that I'm all for women teaching and being in leadership, if the specific woman doing so is gifted in those areas. But let's say, for argument's sake, that I was still a complementarian. (I was for a long time, so it's easy to remember what I thought.)
The problem I would have here is that Piper seems to be interpreting Paul's text very loosely, and without any actual reason to do so. Paul says, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." (I Timothy 2:11-12) He says she cannot teach or exercise authority. Piper says the teaching isn't the problem, it's the exercising of authority. I say that is misreading Paul. If we look at the context of these verses, we see that Paul is saying that the women in Timothy's church were teaching, but specifically, they were teaching false doctrine. They were uneducated, as women in that time often were, and so were unqualified to teach. The things they were teaching were wrong, they were causing disunity in the church, and what's more, they were causing marital problems within families (see the following verses and some good commentaries on them).
So Paul isn't saying, "Those women are barking at you like drill sergeants. They're imposing their femininity upon you, and that is causing all sorts of fleshly sin. Stop letting them do this, put them in another room so you can't see them, and let them do things from there." He's saying, "Stop letting women teach, they're not qualified for it, and by the way, your views on marriage are getting a little screwed up." In my complementarian views, I'd say this means women are not supposed to teach or be in leadership, and that men should be in authority in their family.
In our Women in Ministry class, we taught our students that they could be either complementarian or egalitarian, but they had to be able to support their case. They had to use good sources, be logically consistent, and demonstrate practical follow through. We had two girls in our class decide to remain complementarians, and they did so very responsibly. They used verses just like this one, they incorporated research on these verses, and they demonstrated a logical, practical way to follow through with these beliefs. They could teach Piper a thing or two about good complementarian doctrine.
I'm not saying that Piper's complementarian view is wrong. Though I do not hold it, I do not condemn those who do. However, I believe that his argument for this view is not only incorrect, but damaging on many different levels. I believe it goes against traditionally held, theologically sound doctrines of the church on the human body, the Imago Dei, and sin. I believe that if one is to take Piper's podcast and apply it to their Christian doctrine, they will end up in the camp of Gnostics that were so long ago condemned. Finally, I believe that Piper's argument is bigoted and demeaning to women AND to men. (I would hope that not every man I come into contact with is uncomfortably aware of his "manhood" whenever he sees me...)
My desire is not to villainize John Piper. I do not believe he did this maliciously, and I truly hope his view of women is higher than what he implied. I hope, instead, that we can all learn some very important things through this. That we can learn to overcome outdated, eternally wrong beliefs. That we can learn how to defend our views of women in responsible ways, rather than appealing to heretical ideas. And finally, that both complementarians and egalitarians can come together to affirm that regardless of our stance on women teaching or having authority, we both officially believe that women and men are equal in being, in our reflection of God, and in our roles that we hold, whether we see them as "complementing" each other or functionally equal.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
...A Woman Who Loves the Bible
(I wrote an intro post. Scroll down. It's there. Read it if you're wondering why I'm writing this.)
"I love the Bible. I have loved it all my life. I have never been afraid of it, experienced it as threatening or had anybody succeed in persuading me that they were better interpreters of it than I was, even when I was a child and uneducated. I always knew that I could figure out what it meant if I tried hard enough and prayed about it, and I have always been certain that when I figured out what it meant it would be good news for me. This must be a result of very early parental relationships and Sunday school teachers plus some huge dose of grace; I cant' imagine what else it would be. This makes it hard for me to have an existential appreciation for the struggles of other women. I know because I have heard and believed their stories that many (most?) women have been abused by the Bible and its interpreters. I know that the concept of authority is a problem and that women need to trust their experience. I know all this, but I have no existential connection with this knowledge. I am constantly (and successfully) fighting the impulse to say to women who raise these issues that they should get a life."
(This is a quote from the book Living on the Boundaries (chapter 7, page 169 to be specific), which deals with women in Evangelical circles and the concept of feminist theology. Before you start thinking I've burned my bra and thrown all my razors away, you also need to know that they approach feminist theology from a very Biblical perspective. It's a much more toned down feminism than what we're exposed to in movies and heated discussions. This book interviews several women about their experience as an Evangelical feminist, their understanding of the Bible, and other wonderful topics. I highly recommend reading it.)
I think I wrote this quote. I don't remember writing it. I don't remember being interviewed, asked if my thoughts could go in a book, or even being aware of these things when this book was probably being written, but I am almost positive that is me speaking.
Obviously, it isn't, but it could be. Those thoughts are exactly what I have thought. From the simple fact that I love the Bible, and that I often turn to it when churches or Christians or life in general seem awful, to the fact that I have a hard time understanding why anyone would NOT love the Bible. But I know that's true. I know there are people out there who did not grow up with my parents, my teachers, my undeserved rationality about not believing everything you hear.
And I know that this knowledge of those "others" has affected me, because I find that rather than wanting to ignore those people, yell at them, or roll my eyes, I want to help them. I want to explain to them what I see. I want them to know the Bible that taught me so many good things.
So that's where I want to start. I start with the Bible in my classes, too. I think, if we don't believe the Bible, none of the rest of this really matters. Because then it's nothing more than Greek mythology, where we get to decide what we want God to be and what we want to do about it. If it wasn't for this concrete Truth we call Scripture, our arguments are baseless.
I think the two things about the Bible that had the most potential to ruin my dreams of being me were two very strange (to me), counter-cultural(to me) passages Paul wrote. You may have heard of others, but for me, it was I Corinthians 11:2-15 and I Corinthians 14:34-35. The first one, in chapter 11, says that women must not let their hair down, or that they must cover their heads when praying. The second says women should be silent in church.
Why these are the two verses that have always sat in my head, scratching away at any freedom I thought I had to lead, is unclear to me. There are other verses, too, other ways people argue against women in leadership. There are whole books dealing with the many, many issues here. I don't want to write a book (now, anyway), so I'm just going to talk about these two. And so briefly, it won't really do it justice. Fellow theologians, seminarians, and anyone lucky enough to own a copy of LOGOS Bible software, I'm going to be upfront about this. This is not going to be an in depth, hermeneutical study. I'm sorry. My bad.
I heard a story once of a woman who refused to pray unless she had something on top of her head. If she was unable to procure a hat, she would use sunglasses. Or her hand. As long as there was a THING on her head, she was okay. But without something to cover her head, she could not pray. She was a good woman, too. She loved Jesus a lot. She prayed a lot. I'd have just kept a hat handy at all times, but I'm not her.
I've heard stories of women not being allowed to speak in churches. I've heard from men my own age, in this 21st century, that it is because women are not smart enough. That we are unable to comprehend God, at least not as well as men can, and so we are not to share our immature, unintelligent thoughts. It'll bring the body down, they'd say. We can't have women teaching false understandings, obviously.
These are stories from now. Not 100 years ago. Not even 50 years ago. From now. 1 year ago. Yesterday. These things are happening right this very moment, to some woman who really loves Jesus. And wants to pray without sitting her sunglasses on her head, for the sun is bright and she's driving her car. Her hands are busy taking care of children. Her cancer has taken all her hair, and so she is unable to wear it long. She has studied for years this wonderful thing called GRACE and wants to share it with that visitor in her church. She has a PhD in theology and loves to teach. These verses are being used against her.
What kills me, really, is how these are being used against her. I know a woman who loves Jesus a lot and has long hair and no desire to teach. Some may say, "This blog, this fight, does not apply to her. She is okay."
But is she? Are my concerns only for women pushing the boundaries? Or could these verses be used to say that a woman cannot be in relationship with God fully, in the way men can? If a mother is unable to pray for strength because she hasn't a free hand and nothing to put on her head, is she able to rely on God? If a woman has taught Sunday school for 20 years and one of her very first students walks up to her and asks advice, is she unable to give it because he is now "too old" and has somehow surpassed her knowledge by the simple fact that he is a man?
This is not a fight only for us on the margins. This is for us all.
So what was Paul really saying here? Why are these concerns in the Scripture? Should we simply start wearing bonnets again?
There are many interpretations. I'm not going to simplify a complicated topic and tell you that, no, Paul didn't mean those things. He meant for the church to stay away from sexual sin and cult worship, which is what the hair and head coverings ACTUALLY meant back then. (That's true. That's what they meant. Take your hand off your head. But there's more.) I'm also not going to lecture you on "Context, context, context," as a New Testament scholar and friend would say. Paul told women to be silent because of cultural norms, but also because these particular Corinthian women were actually bringing down the body. I won't explain to you that, as we do with basically everything in the Old Testament, we aren't supposed to take verses out of context, out of their cultural context, and then attempt to apply them literally to our very different world. I'd say all those things, because they're true, if I thought it would help. Sadly, I've witnessed first hand that they often do not.
Instead, I'll tell you what I tell my students. Go, study, learn. Do your research. Find theologians that discuss this, as many of them are much more intelligent than I am. Read what they say. Ask those PhDs at your church what they think. Or the pastor. Ask him/her. If all that sounds too vague, then here. I have a list of books.
Dr. Philip B. Payne wrote a book called Man And Woman, One in Christ.
Living on the Boundaries was written by Nicola Hoggard Creegan and Christine D. Pohl.
Dr. Craig Blomberg goes through these verses in his intro level book, From Pentecost to Patmos.
Dr. Stanley J. Grenz wrote about three million books, but Women in the Church goes through almost every topic I'll ever write about. And it's not terribly long.
Go read the arguments on two websites with differing views, Christians for Biblical Equality and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
There's also a book called The Bible Made Impossible, which just came out in 2011. It talks about how we should read the Bible. What kind of work needs to go into it. It discusses the problems with pulling verses out of their context, and it shows the dangers in a lot of areas. Because this problem isn't just about women.
And if you're just really hankering for Biblical support to all this, go read what Paul says about the women he knew. Junia. Phoebe. Read about Priscilla. Go back to the Old Testament. Read about Esther, Miriam, Deborah, or Abigail. Read about the women Jesus hung out with. (Half their names are Mary. Start there.) Read about the woman Judith in the (gasp!) Apocrypha. There are a lot of women in the Bible. See what God has to say about them. Then tell that mother she has to cover her head to pray, that teacher that she has an age limit she can talk to, or that woman that she doesn't have a complete relationship with God.
"I love the Bible. I have loved it all my life. I have never been afraid of it, experienced it as threatening or had anybody succeed in persuading me that they were better interpreters of it than I was, even when I was a child and uneducated. I always knew that I could figure out what it meant if I tried hard enough and prayed about it, and I have always been certain that when I figured out what it meant it would be good news for me. This must be a result of very early parental relationships and Sunday school teachers plus some huge dose of grace; I cant' imagine what else it would be. This makes it hard for me to have an existential appreciation for the struggles of other women. I know because I have heard and believed their stories that many (most?) women have been abused by the Bible and its interpreters. I know that the concept of authority is a problem and that women need to trust their experience. I know all this, but I have no existential connection with this knowledge. I am constantly (and successfully) fighting the impulse to say to women who raise these issues that they should get a life."
(This is a quote from the book Living on the Boundaries (chapter 7, page 169 to be specific), which deals with women in Evangelical circles and the concept of feminist theology. Before you start thinking I've burned my bra and thrown all my razors away, you also need to know that they approach feminist theology from a very Biblical perspective. It's a much more toned down feminism than what we're exposed to in movies and heated discussions. This book interviews several women about their experience as an Evangelical feminist, their understanding of the Bible, and other wonderful topics. I highly recommend reading it.)
I think I wrote this quote. I don't remember writing it. I don't remember being interviewed, asked if my thoughts could go in a book, or even being aware of these things when this book was probably being written, but I am almost positive that is me speaking.
Obviously, it isn't, but it could be. Those thoughts are exactly what I have thought. From the simple fact that I love the Bible, and that I often turn to it when churches or Christians or life in general seem awful, to the fact that I have a hard time understanding why anyone would NOT love the Bible. But I know that's true. I know there are people out there who did not grow up with my parents, my teachers, my undeserved rationality about not believing everything you hear.
And I know that this knowledge of those "others" has affected me, because I find that rather than wanting to ignore those people, yell at them, or roll my eyes, I want to help them. I want to explain to them what I see. I want them to know the Bible that taught me so many good things.
So that's where I want to start. I start with the Bible in my classes, too. I think, if we don't believe the Bible, none of the rest of this really matters. Because then it's nothing more than Greek mythology, where we get to decide what we want God to be and what we want to do about it. If it wasn't for this concrete Truth we call Scripture, our arguments are baseless.
I think the two things about the Bible that had the most potential to ruin my dreams of being me were two very strange (to me), counter-cultural(to me) passages Paul wrote. You may have heard of others, but for me, it was I Corinthians 11:2-15 and I Corinthians 14:34-35. The first one, in chapter 11, says that women must not let their hair down, or that they must cover their heads when praying. The second says women should be silent in church.
Why these are the two verses that have always sat in my head, scratching away at any freedom I thought I had to lead, is unclear to me. There are other verses, too, other ways people argue against women in leadership. There are whole books dealing with the many, many issues here. I don't want to write a book (now, anyway), so I'm just going to talk about these two. And so briefly, it won't really do it justice. Fellow theologians, seminarians, and anyone lucky enough to own a copy of LOGOS Bible software, I'm going to be upfront about this. This is not going to be an in depth, hermeneutical study. I'm sorry. My bad.
I heard a story once of a woman who refused to pray unless she had something on top of her head. If she was unable to procure a hat, she would use sunglasses. Or her hand. As long as there was a THING on her head, she was okay. But without something to cover her head, she could not pray. She was a good woman, too. She loved Jesus a lot. She prayed a lot. I'd have just kept a hat handy at all times, but I'm not her.
I've heard stories of women not being allowed to speak in churches. I've heard from men my own age, in this 21st century, that it is because women are not smart enough. That we are unable to comprehend God, at least not as well as men can, and so we are not to share our immature, unintelligent thoughts. It'll bring the body down, they'd say. We can't have women teaching false understandings, obviously.
These are stories from now. Not 100 years ago. Not even 50 years ago. From now. 1 year ago. Yesterday. These things are happening right this very moment, to some woman who really loves Jesus. And wants to pray without sitting her sunglasses on her head, for the sun is bright and she's driving her car. Her hands are busy taking care of children. Her cancer has taken all her hair, and so she is unable to wear it long. She has studied for years this wonderful thing called GRACE and wants to share it with that visitor in her church. She has a PhD in theology and loves to teach. These verses are being used against her.
What kills me, really, is how these are being used against her. I know a woman who loves Jesus a lot and has long hair and no desire to teach. Some may say, "This blog, this fight, does not apply to her. She is okay."
But is she? Are my concerns only for women pushing the boundaries? Or could these verses be used to say that a woman cannot be in relationship with God fully, in the way men can? If a mother is unable to pray for strength because she hasn't a free hand and nothing to put on her head, is she able to rely on God? If a woman has taught Sunday school for 20 years and one of her very first students walks up to her and asks advice, is she unable to give it because he is now "too old" and has somehow surpassed her knowledge by the simple fact that he is a man?
This is not a fight only for us on the margins. This is for us all.
So what was Paul really saying here? Why are these concerns in the Scripture? Should we simply start wearing bonnets again?
There are many interpretations. I'm not going to simplify a complicated topic and tell you that, no, Paul didn't mean those things. He meant for the church to stay away from sexual sin and cult worship, which is what the hair and head coverings ACTUALLY meant back then. (That's true. That's what they meant. Take your hand off your head. But there's more.) I'm also not going to lecture you on "Context, context, context," as a New Testament scholar and friend would say. Paul told women to be silent because of cultural norms, but also because these particular Corinthian women were actually bringing down the body. I won't explain to you that, as we do with basically everything in the Old Testament, we aren't supposed to take verses out of context, out of their cultural context, and then attempt to apply them literally to our very different world. I'd say all those things, because they're true, if I thought it would help. Sadly, I've witnessed first hand that they often do not.
Instead, I'll tell you what I tell my students. Go, study, learn. Do your research. Find theologians that discuss this, as many of them are much more intelligent than I am. Read what they say. Ask those PhDs at your church what they think. Or the pastor. Ask him/her. If all that sounds too vague, then here. I have a list of books.
Dr. Philip B. Payne wrote a book called Man And Woman, One in Christ.
Living on the Boundaries was written by Nicola Hoggard Creegan and Christine D. Pohl.
Dr. Craig Blomberg goes through these verses in his intro level book, From Pentecost to Patmos.
Dr. Stanley J. Grenz wrote about three million books, but Women in the Church goes through almost every topic I'll ever write about. And it's not terribly long.
Go read the arguments on two websites with differing views, Christians for Biblical Equality and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
There's also a book called The Bible Made Impossible, which just came out in 2011. It talks about how we should read the Bible. What kind of work needs to go into it. It discusses the problems with pulling verses out of their context, and it shows the dangers in a lot of areas. Because this problem isn't just about women.
And if you're just really hankering for Biblical support to all this, go read what Paul says about the women he knew. Junia. Phoebe. Read about Priscilla. Go back to the Old Testament. Read about Esther, Miriam, Deborah, or Abigail. Read about the women Jesus hung out with. (Half their names are Mary. Start there.) Read about the woman Judith in the (gasp!) Apocrypha. There are a lot of women in the Bible. See what God has to say about them. Then tell that mother she has to cover her head to pray, that teacher that she has an age limit she can talk to, or that woman that she doesn't have a complete relationship with God.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
On Being a Woman
I have been tossing around the idea of writing a post about my class (Women in Ministry, which I'm co-teaching this semester) and the things the students, and I, have been learning. I thought about doing it this summer, when I'd have more time. But I'm afraid that if I don't do it now, I never will. Because now is when I am watching the students grow. Now is when I'm answering, asking, and learning the hard questions. Now is when I'm daily in conversation about what it means to be a woman within this culture of Christianity.
I say culture very deliberately. The fact is, Christianity forms a culture. It does this anywhere it is located. In Africa, Asia, the Caribbean. And in America. We tend to think, as arrogant Westerners do, that our brand of Christianity is the right brand of Christianity. We are wrong, but not in the ways we often think. That post, though, is for another day.
So in the context of Western, more specifically American, Christianity, there are a lot of thoughts about what it means to be "a woman of God." Megan and I asked our students this question a couple weeks ago. They're asked to journal their thoughts about both the readings and about class, and that was one of the things we had them journal about. As I read over their responses, I relived many of the places I've been in my journey. Many of the thoughts I'd had, doubts I'd had. Many of the questions that I asked. I could relate with each and every student.
One theme I saw was of the students bringing our class material into their individual Bible studies. A couple of them have actually formed the studies around our class. Some just bring it up as it pertains to the material. Many talked about students coming to them with questions about this class. I had no idea how many people were interested in this class. And I thought again about this post, and decided it was high time I write it.
But as hard as I tried to fit it all in one post, I just can't. There's too much. So bear with me. I'll get it all out there eventually. But for now, let's just talk about why.
I grew up with some seriously incredible parents. Let's get that out there first. I am constantly in shock at how much damage my parents did not cause me. I'm creative, flighty, and fit into almost no definable category. I'm the kind of kid that parents dread. The kid who, after changing her major 4 times, decides to get a degree in English. And writing. With no clear idea of what that leads to. I remember thinking I'd have to convince them it would be okay, so I did all this research into jobs I knew I wouldn't ever apply for to show them it could be a lucrative degree. I didn't even have to break that out. They just said, "Good for you." Then, for no clear reason yet again, I decided to go to seminary. I was up front about it this time. I had no idea why, no plans for a job, no logical reason to do this. And they said, "Good for you." (And beyond that, they were extremely supportive and frequently took my dog for a week or so while I needed to study.) Then, when I told them I wanted to write, they said the same. Good for you. Go do it. These very supportive phrases, emphasizing that they believed in me. Most people with my aspirations talk about having to convince people, backlash they got, or sit down talks where their parents tried to convince them to be accountants. I greatly appreciate the support I got.
But in that support, they were also clear about their conservative views. My dad explained to me, without ever using the word, the complementarian view. That women, while equal with men, were not to be pastors. They were not to be in leadership. I accepted this, since he was, obviously, my dad. He must know. He did it in the best way possible, too. Never did I think he looked down on women. Never was any kind of benevolent sexism, or the much worse misogyny, displayed in how he treated me, my mom, or any woman he knew. He is respectful; he values their gifts and talents and very presence. In believing that women were not to be in leadership, he did not believe that indicated any kind of subservience. It was just that God had arranged a functional hierarchy. And for most of my life, I was completely okay with this. So for most of my life, I believed that there was a limit to what I could do as a woman. I believed that even after seminary, I would not be able to lead.
I can't go into details about my "conversion" to egalitarianism (that since men and women are equal, they must be allowed to serve equally in roles as well), mainly because I can't even identify them. I don't know when it happened. I just remember one day realizing that my functional theology--the way I was living my life--resembled egalitarianism.
Being one of two girls in the theology program, it was typical for me to be the only girl. It was also typical for me to be mistaken for a different program, one that was predominately female. I could tell immediately what people thought of me, too, when they found out what I was actually doing. There was the attempt to hide disapproval--this was usually followed with, "What do you plan to do with that?" They'd feel better when I said I didn't know. Then there were the people who were uncomfortable, but didn't want to be. They'd often say things like, "Wow! Good for you!" As if I had just won an Olympic medal. It was few and far between when I would meet someone who would say, with no hidden agenda, "Oh, cool. More girls should do that." I longed for those people. I didn't set out to blaze trails or make a statement. I had simply wanted to know more about God.
Thankfully, in the midst of people's opinions of me, I found a lot of support and intelligent guidance. I had professors encouraging me, teaching me about the women who really had blazed trails like Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Sallie McFague, or Elizabeth Johnson. They gave me better knowledge of the Bible verses I had previously seen as roadblocks. Most importantly, they treated me like they did any of the male students. I never felt different in their eyes. And that was the best support I could get.
What's more, and what's more surprising, is the support my dad gave me. After seminary, when I got my job teaching, he was one of the loudest supporters. He was proud. He stood up to his friends who were concerned. I knew he was supporting me, no matter what his views were on the subject. We've had many conversations, and I know his mind hasn't changed. But I also know that he loves me and trusts me enough to let me do this without fear that I'm going against God. In all our talks, he always ends it with, "I just want you to be right with God." And that's really what he means. And he knows that is all I want.
When we started our Women in Ministry class, my goal was really just to make sure the girls didn't feel stifled. I wanted to be for them what my professors, my mentors, and my dad have been for me. I wanted them to understand that they could do whatever it was that God wanted them to do. (Full disclosure: we have a boy in class, too. Just the one, which makes me a little sad, but he's been a good asset.) I wanted them to know they didn't just have to be "barefoot and pregnant." As the semester has gone on, I've noticed my goals getting bigger for them. I want them to know so much more. I want them to be more aware, more open. And I've seen so much growth. And that's what I want to share with you. What we've been learning, what they've been thinking, and what it all means.
I say culture very deliberately. The fact is, Christianity forms a culture. It does this anywhere it is located. In Africa, Asia, the Caribbean. And in America. We tend to think, as arrogant Westerners do, that our brand of Christianity is the right brand of Christianity. We are wrong, but not in the ways we often think. That post, though, is for another day.
So in the context of Western, more specifically American, Christianity, there are a lot of thoughts about what it means to be "a woman of God." Megan and I asked our students this question a couple weeks ago. They're asked to journal their thoughts about both the readings and about class, and that was one of the things we had them journal about. As I read over their responses, I relived many of the places I've been in my journey. Many of the thoughts I'd had, doubts I'd had. Many of the questions that I asked. I could relate with each and every student.
One theme I saw was of the students bringing our class material into their individual Bible studies. A couple of them have actually formed the studies around our class. Some just bring it up as it pertains to the material. Many talked about students coming to them with questions about this class. I had no idea how many people were interested in this class. And I thought again about this post, and decided it was high time I write it.
But as hard as I tried to fit it all in one post, I just can't. There's too much. So bear with me. I'll get it all out there eventually. But for now, let's just talk about why.
I grew up with some seriously incredible parents. Let's get that out there first. I am constantly in shock at how much damage my parents did not cause me. I'm creative, flighty, and fit into almost no definable category. I'm the kind of kid that parents dread. The kid who, after changing her major 4 times, decides to get a degree in English. And writing. With no clear idea of what that leads to. I remember thinking I'd have to convince them it would be okay, so I did all this research into jobs I knew I wouldn't ever apply for to show them it could be a lucrative degree. I didn't even have to break that out. They just said, "Good for you." Then, for no clear reason yet again, I decided to go to seminary. I was up front about it this time. I had no idea why, no plans for a job, no logical reason to do this. And they said, "Good for you." (And beyond that, they were extremely supportive and frequently took my dog for a week or so while I needed to study.) Then, when I told them I wanted to write, they said the same. Good for you. Go do it. These very supportive phrases, emphasizing that they believed in me. Most people with my aspirations talk about having to convince people, backlash they got, or sit down talks where their parents tried to convince them to be accountants. I greatly appreciate the support I got.
But in that support, they were also clear about their conservative views. My dad explained to me, without ever using the word, the complementarian view. That women, while equal with men, were not to be pastors. They were not to be in leadership. I accepted this, since he was, obviously, my dad. He must know. He did it in the best way possible, too. Never did I think he looked down on women. Never was any kind of benevolent sexism, or the much worse misogyny, displayed in how he treated me, my mom, or any woman he knew. He is respectful; he values their gifts and talents and very presence. In believing that women were not to be in leadership, he did not believe that indicated any kind of subservience. It was just that God had arranged a functional hierarchy. And for most of my life, I was completely okay with this. So for most of my life, I believed that there was a limit to what I could do as a woman. I believed that even after seminary, I would not be able to lead.
I can't go into details about my "conversion" to egalitarianism (that since men and women are equal, they must be allowed to serve equally in roles as well), mainly because I can't even identify them. I don't know when it happened. I just remember one day realizing that my functional theology--the way I was living my life--resembled egalitarianism.
Being one of two girls in the theology program, it was typical for me to be the only girl. It was also typical for me to be mistaken for a different program, one that was predominately female. I could tell immediately what people thought of me, too, when they found out what I was actually doing. There was the attempt to hide disapproval--this was usually followed with, "What do you plan to do with that?" They'd feel better when I said I didn't know. Then there were the people who were uncomfortable, but didn't want to be. They'd often say things like, "Wow! Good for you!" As if I had just won an Olympic medal. It was few and far between when I would meet someone who would say, with no hidden agenda, "Oh, cool. More girls should do that." I longed for those people. I didn't set out to blaze trails or make a statement. I had simply wanted to know more about God.
Thankfully, in the midst of people's opinions of me, I found a lot of support and intelligent guidance. I had professors encouraging me, teaching me about the women who really had blazed trails like Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Sallie McFague, or Elizabeth Johnson. They gave me better knowledge of the Bible verses I had previously seen as roadblocks. Most importantly, they treated me like they did any of the male students. I never felt different in their eyes. And that was the best support I could get.
What's more, and what's more surprising, is the support my dad gave me. After seminary, when I got my job teaching, he was one of the loudest supporters. He was proud. He stood up to his friends who were concerned. I knew he was supporting me, no matter what his views were on the subject. We've had many conversations, and I know his mind hasn't changed. But I also know that he loves me and trusts me enough to let me do this without fear that I'm going against God. In all our talks, he always ends it with, "I just want you to be right with God." And that's really what he means. And he knows that is all I want.
When we started our Women in Ministry class, my goal was really just to make sure the girls didn't feel stifled. I wanted to be for them what my professors, my mentors, and my dad have been for me. I wanted them to understand that they could do whatever it was that God wanted them to do. (Full disclosure: we have a boy in class, too. Just the one, which makes me a little sad, but he's been a good asset.) I wanted them to know they didn't just have to be "barefoot and pregnant." As the semester has gone on, I've noticed my goals getting bigger for them. I want them to know so much more. I want them to be more aware, more open. And I've seen so much growth. And that's what I want to share with you. What we've been learning, what they've been thinking, and what it all means.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Grammy Thoughts
I'm very against this concept of grading. I mean it. VERY AGAINST IT. Which means, I'm doing anything I can think of that is not grading.
I can't promise this list of random thoughts while I watch the Grammy's isn't going to get as insane as that Oscars post years ago. It's just very likely I'll have a lot of thoughts. I often do. ;) But at least I'm blogging, right?
Whateves.
1. Taylor Swift. I'm sorry to all of my friends who love her. But she is just not good live. She is, in fact, bad. And I feel like it'd be a nice change to go ahead and let people who are good live perform at the Grammy's. It just makes sense.
2. LL. Oh man.
3. J Lo. Dress code or not, that's not a good dress. Dress? Is dress the right word? I don't know, it seems like it's giving that fabric too much credit.
4. If I could create myself a posse of women, it would include Adele. And Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Stone, obvs.
5. FUN.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6. Expect #5 to just keep being repeated. Nate, marry me.
Progress update: I've graded 10 papers. Multi-tasking like a boss.
7. There was a Hawaii Five-0 commercial. It's been years, and I still think Jin is just messing with our heads. At some point, he's going to be like, "BACK TO THE ISLAND!" Even though he never really left. Omg. What if we're living in the sideways time line?
8. This whole Twitter Hashtag Grammy thing is incredibly annoying. HastagstopLL.
9. FUN.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (They won a Grammy!!! And they look so nice!)
10. Taylor Swift is acting like she's a fun. fan. I will punch her.
11. JOHNNY DEPP!!!!!!!!!!! I cannot get over how much I love that man. AND wish that he would be in my weird posse. He'd be the token guy. Also, he just used the word "sublime," and it wasn't even ironic.
12. Ellen also gets to be in my posse. Beyonce looked SO uncomfortable, because as cool as she is, I'm pretty sure she's not known for her sense of humor.
13. JT. Why is he in black and white? What's that like in person? Disappointing? I kept hearing about his new song, but I successfully avoided hearing it until today. I just don't think anything is really ever going to compare to Bye Bye Bye. You know it's true. And I was pretty much correct. This song evokes very confusing emotions. Like distaste. And confusion. And overall distraction by the weird black and white-ness. And how many songs is this? I feel like he's on his third song, but again, I can't be sure. Maybe someone should explain this to me. Maybe I've been hanging out with Johann and his constant Celine Dion playing too much. (It's all the time. All. The. Time.) Also, how long is this? Seriously, is it multiple songs? Did Jay-Z go back to his seat? Was he bored? I'm so confused. I think the overall lesson here is to not have Justin follow Mumford.
Progress update: 17 papers down.
14. DAVE GROHL! Why is it that I am not besties with him? We should be besties. And his movie (Sound City) was freaking awesome, in case you were wondering. But all that aside, I think this is by far the most effort Dave's put into an outfit in a long time. Finally, I'm very glad the Black Keys won. I dig them.
15. When I was a freshman in college (get ready for a story that dates me), Alicia Key's song "Fallin" had just come out. My roommates and I listened to it more than was socially acceptable. We even said it was the theme song for our room. (By the way, this is not because the lyrics were somehow pertinent to events in our lives. I actually am not sure why we called it our theme song, other than that it was playing nearly 24/7.) So I have a special spot in my heart for Alicia. But I really hate this Girl on Fire song. Also, if I have to watch Adam Levine perform, I wish he was singing YOLO. I wish you all could see the look on my dog's face when I started playing that song for the millionth time today. Perhaps I'm the exact same person I was at 18, just with a different song.
16. Second fairly pointless college story: When Kelly Clarkson became famous or whatever, my roommates (new roommates, and also, maybe it was after she was famous? My timeline here is sketchy at best) and I were obsessed with her. (Don't ask. I cannot explain this either.) So we started using her songs as code for certain guys. I'll just say that "My Life Sucks Without You" and "Since You've Been Gone" were actually dedicated to the same person, and it was mildly confusing. EITHER WAY, I'm okay that she beat fun., but only because they already have a Grammy.
17. Rihanna is singing, so let's use this time to discuss more important things. I had a student use the word plethora. Of course, I then said, "Plethora? How can you say I have a plethora if you do not even know what it means?" Luckily, this student knows what it means, but either way, I have a sudden desire to stop watching the Grammy's and pop in some Three Amigo awesomeness. More importantly, I feel the need to make sure my student knows about this movie, but as he's 19, he probably doesn't. Back to this Rihanna thing for a second, who is this guy singing with her? I am old, as we've so clearly established, and thus do not know current pop stars.
18. I JUST REALIZED THIS GOES TIL 10:30. WHAT?! Why is it so long? I deeply regret starting this. I feel a sense of commitment, like because I'm doing this post I have to finish this show. But I have Walking Dead to watch. WHAT IF DARYL DIES AND I'M JUST OVER HERE LIKE, "Oh, look how pretty Faith Hill's dress is." Gross. And I don't even know 90% of who is on stage at any given moment. Because I have ADD and papers to grade, so I can't always listen when they announce names.
19. When I was little (sorry, these stories just help) my mom led me to believe that it was approximately 1968. So I actually thought the Beatles were still together, and I REALLY wanted to go see them in concert. Anyway, I also liked all these other bands from then (because I thought it WAS then), and I was pretty sure when I got old enough, I'd be a hippie and go to Woodstock and stuff. All that to say, The Black Keys kind of make me think I can still do that. I appreciate that about them.
20. Kelly Clarkson is singing, which is good and all, but I never dedicated this song to anyone, so I don't care too much. EXCEPT I TAKE IT ALL BACK BECAUSE NOW SHE'S SINGING ARETHA FRANKLIN. Who, since I grew up in 1968, was one of my favorite singers. Because I do often feel like a natural woman. Or something less weird.
21. Okay, the point I was going to make. Which is completely unrelated. One of my other students (see how productive I am?) is talking about how he wants to open a bar in the inner city that will double as a church. I THINK THIS IS BRILLIANT.
22. Confession time: I'm obsessed with Bruno Mars' song "Locked Out of Heaven." Don't judge. So this is currently very exciting for me. BUT ALSO, I'm excited because I also secretly love reggae. This should surprise none of you. I was supposed to live in the Caribbean, after all. Second confession: I don't love Sting. I think he's weird. I do love the Friends episode about Sting's son, though. "ROOOOOSSS CAAAANNN!" haha...sorry. Back on track. Keith Urban is also singing along to Bruno. This actually doesn't help my guilt at all. This kind of does:
Does anyone else feel awkward about Sting singing Bob Marley, though? Bruno Mars makes sense. So do Rihanna and the Marley boys. Sting is throwing me off. He's from England, right? Also, I thought I saw Rihanna's underboob, but apparently it's a tattoo. I'm going to avoid looking at the screen for a bit now. Hopeful final point of this performance, is Bruno kind of tiny? He looks tiny. But maybe the Marleys are large? I'm not up on heights of these people. But he looks fairly short. And ALSO, Dave Grohl looked confused about that performance. Perhaps he's only a closet BSB fan.
23. I recently found out that the girl in the Lumineers went to my college. Somehow this should lead to me getting free tickets, right? Also, Mark Foster (of Foster the People) and I went to high school together. It was a little school, and I knew almost everyone, but I do not remember this guy to save my life. Last year, when he was performing on the Grammy's with the Beach Boys (who I of course love), all my high school friends were like, "Kristy. That's Mark. I played the flute in band and he played the oboe." (Or something.) And I was ashamed and a little mad that I couldn't be like, "Oh, yeah! That kid!" And this story's lesson is that band nerds sometimes become really cool, but I was not a band nerd, so I missed that boat.
24. I have a lot of friends on the East Coast, and they're all already done with this Grammy nonsense. So that means I know who wins best new artist, album of the year, and some other awards. This is not helping my motivation to make it to 10:30. I bet you're all secretly hoping I don't, because this list is already too long.
25. FUN.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Another Grammy. My cup overflows.) (Nate has to pee. WHICH BRINGS ME TO A STORY! So Nate was previously in The Format, which is absolutely the most awesome band ever, and I'm still sad about that break up. So Jenn and I loved The Format for years and years. (Which is why I believe that Nate was personally thanking us in his first speech.) So when fun. first started, we went to all their concerts in the tiny little venues they started playing in. Once, they played at the Black Sheep. The Black Sheep is this incredibly sketchy place in Colorado Springs. There were around 20 of us at that concert. Total. So Jenn and I were hanging out in the back while the opening band was playing, and Nate walked by. And Jenn, being the most awesome person ever, asked him to take a picture with us.
This is a terrible picture of me, but who the hell cares, I'm standing next to Nate. ANYWAY, he was very tired. So through the whole concert (that was less concert like and more band playing in your house), he kept talking about how he was tired, he had to pee, and stuff like that. So then he just straight up started taking requests, because he was too tired to remember the set list. And it was the greatest concert of my life. )
26. Hey, it's Prince! Remember when he was "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"? He's not less crazy now. Also, I'm going to start wearing sparkly black hoodies. It'll make me look cooler when I have a cane. Secondly, did ANYONE think Goyte would win? And who is that chick? Is she in the band? Is it a band? Oh, dear. I'm confused again. And is he thanking Prince? And why does Prince look bored? I mean, it's hard to tell with the sunglasses on. At least he's got a cool accent. For real, is that girl in the band? Oh, no, it's Kimre. Kimre? She's also pretty thrilled about Prince being there. I would be too, though. I mean, it's Prince.
27. Hold up. Justin is singing again? Let's hope for some NSync throwback. Bey did it! Come on, JT. Don't let us down. Oh. He's just talking. Well. You'd think that since it's 10, I'd feel like I might make it to the end of this. But I have to be honest. I'm about done.
28. Donna Summer died? How did I not know this. Also, Robin Gibb? I actually thought he died a long time ago. Are any of those Gibbs alive? Also, I'm still fairly heartbroken that Davey Jones is gone. Because yes, I thought he was only a little older than me and might possibly take me to the prom. Like Marcia Brady. Who was the same age as me. Right?
29. Because I am now aware of the decade I live in, I'll just tell you that it took me a while to get into the Beastie Boys, but basically, I had the worst timing ever. I had finally decided that it would be fun to see them in concert, and then Adam Yuach died. However, Chris Martin did a very cool tribute you can watch here, but also I got to see an Incubus/Linkin Park tribute at their concert. They played Sabotage, and it was very cool.
30. This collaboration with Elton and Mumford and basically everyone at the Grammy's is pretty awesome. Oh, Bob. Also, I feel like you all think I listened solely to music from the 60s/70s for the majority of my life. I actually discovered the 90s around the time I was 12. So mid-90s. But at that point, I decided to like grunge/alternative rock. That's when I became a big Cranberries fan. And The Wallflowers, which actually includes Bob Dylan's son, so it comes full circle. Anyway, I started listening to current music then, but then all my friends were country fans, so I started in on that phase for about 3 years. When I got to college, my dearest roommate Jenny and my friend Kelly both helped me recover from that awkward stage.
I feel like I should tell you guys about the time I thought I had learned how to play the accordion, but it turned out to be a very realistic dream. But this post has gone on for long enough, so just ask me next time. Or maybe I'll want to procrastinate some grading later and tell you that story. Or the one about how I thought I was actual friends with The Thompson Brothers Band, because they signed some stuff for me at a concert and were friendly.
Mumford wins Album of the Year. We out.
I can't promise this list of random thoughts while I watch the Grammy's isn't going to get as insane as that Oscars post years ago. It's just very likely I'll have a lot of thoughts. I often do. ;) But at least I'm blogging, right?
Whateves.
1. Taylor Swift. I'm sorry to all of my friends who love her. But she is just not good live. She is, in fact, bad. And I feel like it'd be a nice change to go ahead and let people who are good live perform at the Grammy's. It just makes sense.
2. LL. Oh man.
3. J Lo. Dress code or not, that's not a good dress. Dress? Is dress the right word? I don't know, it seems like it's giving that fabric too much credit.
4. If I could create myself a posse of women, it would include Adele. And Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Stone, obvs.
5. FUN.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6. Expect #5 to just keep being repeated. Nate, marry me.
Progress update: I've graded 10 papers. Multi-tasking like a boss.
7. There was a Hawaii Five-0 commercial. It's been years, and I still think Jin is just messing with our heads. At some point, he's going to be like, "BACK TO THE ISLAND!" Even though he never really left. Omg. What if we're living in the sideways time line?
8. This whole Twitter Hashtag Grammy thing is incredibly annoying. HastagstopLL.
9. FUN.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (They won a Grammy!!! And they look so nice!)
10. Taylor Swift is acting like she's a fun. fan. I will punch her.
11. JOHNNY DEPP!!!!!!!!!!! I cannot get over how much I love that man. AND wish that he would be in my weird posse. He'd be the token guy. Also, he just used the word "sublime," and it wasn't even ironic.
12. Ellen also gets to be in my posse. Beyonce looked SO uncomfortable, because as cool as she is, I'm pretty sure she's not known for her sense of humor.
13. JT. Why is he in black and white? What's that like in person? Disappointing? I kept hearing about his new song, but I successfully avoided hearing it until today. I just don't think anything is really ever going to compare to Bye Bye Bye. You know it's true. And I was pretty much correct. This song evokes very confusing emotions. Like distaste. And confusion. And overall distraction by the weird black and white-ness. And how many songs is this? I feel like he's on his third song, but again, I can't be sure. Maybe someone should explain this to me. Maybe I've been hanging out with Johann and his constant Celine Dion playing too much. (It's all the time. All. The. Time.) Also, how long is this? Seriously, is it multiple songs? Did Jay-Z go back to his seat? Was he bored? I'm so confused. I think the overall lesson here is to not have Justin follow Mumford.
Progress update: 17 papers down.
14. DAVE GROHL! Why is it that I am not besties with him? We should be besties. And his movie (Sound City) was freaking awesome, in case you were wondering. But all that aside, I think this is by far the most effort Dave's put into an outfit in a long time. Finally, I'm very glad the Black Keys won. I dig them.
15. When I was a freshman in college (get ready for a story that dates me), Alicia Key's song "Fallin" had just come out. My roommates and I listened to it more than was socially acceptable. We even said it was the theme song for our room. (By the way, this is not because the lyrics were somehow pertinent to events in our lives. I actually am not sure why we called it our theme song, other than that it was playing nearly 24/7.) So I have a special spot in my heart for Alicia. But I really hate this Girl on Fire song. Also, if I have to watch Adam Levine perform, I wish he was singing YOLO. I wish you all could see the look on my dog's face when I started playing that song for the millionth time today. Perhaps I'm the exact same person I was at 18, just with a different song.
16. Second fairly pointless college story: When Kelly Clarkson became famous or whatever, my roommates (new roommates, and also, maybe it was after she was famous? My timeline here is sketchy at best) and I were obsessed with her. (Don't ask. I cannot explain this either.) So we started using her songs as code for certain guys. I'll just say that "My Life Sucks Without You" and "Since You've Been Gone" were actually dedicated to the same person, and it was mildly confusing. EITHER WAY, I'm okay that she beat fun., but only because they already have a Grammy.
17. Rihanna is singing, so let's use this time to discuss more important things. I had a student use the word plethora. Of course, I then said, "Plethora? How can you say I have a plethora if you do not even know what it means?" Luckily, this student knows what it means, but either way, I have a sudden desire to stop watching the Grammy's and pop in some Three Amigo awesomeness. More importantly, I feel the need to make sure my student knows about this movie, but as he's 19, he probably doesn't. Back to this Rihanna thing for a second, who is this guy singing with her? I am old, as we've so clearly established, and thus do not know current pop stars.
18. I JUST REALIZED THIS GOES TIL 10:30. WHAT?! Why is it so long? I deeply regret starting this. I feel a sense of commitment, like because I'm doing this post I have to finish this show. But I have Walking Dead to watch. WHAT IF DARYL DIES AND I'M JUST OVER HERE LIKE, "Oh, look how pretty Faith Hill's dress is." Gross. And I don't even know 90% of who is on stage at any given moment. Because I have ADD and papers to grade, so I can't always listen when they announce names.
19. When I was little (sorry, these stories just help) my mom led me to believe that it was approximately 1968. So I actually thought the Beatles were still together, and I REALLY wanted to go see them in concert. Anyway, I also liked all these other bands from then (because I thought it WAS then), and I was pretty sure when I got old enough, I'd be a hippie and go to Woodstock and stuff. All that to say, The Black Keys kind of make me think I can still do that. I appreciate that about them.
20. Kelly Clarkson is singing, which is good and all, but I never dedicated this song to anyone, so I don't care too much. EXCEPT I TAKE IT ALL BACK BECAUSE NOW SHE'S SINGING ARETHA FRANKLIN. Who, since I grew up in 1968, was one of my favorite singers. Because I do often feel like a natural woman. Or something less weird.
21. Okay, the point I was going to make. Which is completely unrelated. One of my other students (see how productive I am?) is talking about how he wants to open a bar in the inner city that will double as a church. I THINK THIS IS BRILLIANT.
22. Confession time: I'm obsessed with Bruno Mars' song "Locked Out of Heaven." Don't judge. So this is currently very exciting for me. BUT ALSO, I'm excited because I also secretly love reggae. This should surprise none of you. I was supposed to live in the Caribbean, after all. Second confession: I don't love Sting. I think he's weird. I do love the Friends episode about Sting's son, though. "ROOOOOSSS CAAAANNN!" haha...sorry. Back on track. Keith Urban is also singing along to Bruno. This actually doesn't help my guilt at all. This kind of does:
23. I recently found out that the girl in the Lumineers went to my college. Somehow this should lead to me getting free tickets, right? Also, Mark Foster (of Foster the People) and I went to high school together. It was a little school, and I knew almost everyone, but I do not remember this guy to save my life. Last year, when he was performing on the Grammy's with the Beach Boys (who I of course love), all my high school friends were like, "Kristy. That's Mark. I played the flute in band and he played the oboe." (Or something.) And I was ashamed and a little mad that I couldn't be like, "Oh, yeah! That kid!" And this story's lesson is that band nerds sometimes become really cool, but I was not a band nerd, so I missed that boat.
24. I have a lot of friends on the East Coast, and they're all already done with this Grammy nonsense. So that means I know who wins best new artist, album of the year, and some other awards. This is not helping my motivation to make it to 10:30. I bet you're all secretly hoping I don't, because this list is already too long.
25. FUN.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Another Grammy. My cup overflows.) (Nate has to pee. WHICH BRINGS ME TO A STORY! So Nate was previously in The Format, which is absolutely the most awesome band ever, and I'm still sad about that break up. So Jenn and I loved The Format for years and years. (Which is why I believe that Nate was personally thanking us in his first speech.) So when fun. first started, we went to all their concerts in the tiny little venues they started playing in. Once, they played at the Black Sheep. The Black Sheep is this incredibly sketchy place in Colorado Springs. There were around 20 of us at that concert. Total. So Jenn and I were hanging out in the back while the opening band was playing, and Nate walked by. And Jenn, being the most awesome person ever, asked him to take a picture with us.
26. Hey, it's Prince! Remember when he was "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"? He's not less crazy now. Also, I'm going to start wearing sparkly black hoodies. It'll make me look cooler when I have a cane. Secondly, did ANYONE think Goyte would win? And who is that chick? Is she in the band? Is it a band? Oh, dear. I'm confused again. And is he thanking Prince? And why does Prince look bored? I mean, it's hard to tell with the sunglasses on. At least he's got a cool accent. For real, is that girl in the band? Oh, no, it's Kimre. Kimre? She's also pretty thrilled about Prince being there. I would be too, though. I mean, it's Prince.
27. Hold up. Justin is singing again? Let's hope for some NSync throwback. Bey did it! Come on, JT. Don't let us down. Oh. He's just talking. Well. You'd think that since it's 10, I'd feel like I might make it to the end of this. But I have to be honest. I'm about done.
28. Donna Summer died? How did I not know this. Also, Robin Gibb? I actually thought he died a long time ago. Are any of those Gibbs alive? Also, I'm still fairly heartbroken that Davey Jones is gone. Because yes, I thought he was only a little older than me and might possibly take me to the prom. Like Marcia Brady. Who was the same age as me. Right?
29. Because I am now aware of the decade I live in, I'll just tell you that it took me a while to get into the Beastie Boys, but basically, I had the worst timing ever. I had finally decided that it would be fun to see them in concert, and then Adam Yuach died. However, Chris Martin did a very cool tribute you can watch here, but also I got to see an Incubus/Linkin Park tribute at their concert. They played Sabotage, and it was very cool.
30. This collaboration with Elton and Mumford and basically everyone at the Grammy's is pretty awesome. Oh, Bob. Also, I feel like you all think I listened solely to music from the 60s/70s for the majority of my life. I actually discovered the 90s around the time I was 12. So mid-90s. But at that point, I decided to like grunge/alternative rock. That's when I became a big Cranberries fan. And The Wallflowers, which actually includes Bob Dylan's son, so it comes full circle. Anyway, I started listening to current music then, but then all my friends were country fans, so I started in on that phase for about 3 years. When I got to college, my dearest roommate Jenny and my friend Kelly both helped me recover from that awkward stage.
I feel like I should tell you guys about the time I thought I had learned how to play the accordion, but it turned out to be a very realistic dream. But this post has gone on for long enough, so just ask me next time. Or maybe I'll want to procrastinate some grading later and tell you that story. Or the one about how I thought I was actual friends with The Thompson Brothers Band, because they signed some stuff for me at a concert and were friendly.
Mumford wins Album of the Year. We out.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
We Made It!
Last year, I wrote a blog about my expectations and whatnot for 2012, and I mentioned that it had better be a good year, since the world was supposed to end. You know, for the 5th time.
So, to start off 2013, let's celebrate that we made it through yet another uneventful and boring apocalypse!
On the last day of the world that wasn't, I was busy grading papers. So clearly I am doing well at being positive and optimistic about the future.
Or something.
Anyway, I'm a day late, but here's my annual new year post.
I hate to tell you all this, but I have very little in the way of "deep thoughts" or resolutions or anything. I heard on the radio this morning someone use the words "New Year's Resolutions," and that was the first time I even thought about whether I should make any. I decided that since I was too late in making them, that meant I didn't need any.
I mean, I do want some good things to come of 2013. I'll be starting school again in the fall (...suprise!...or not...), assuming I get accepted. :) I'll be teaching 4 classes this semester, so I'll be very busy and important. But beyond those things, I guess I haven't thought too much about things I want from this year.
I guess that says something. I wish the thing it said was that I am content in my life, but it's not. I think it probably is much more pessimistic and cynical. But those are not things I care to think about right now. Right now, I'm going to think about enjoying the last 6 months of my 20s, enjoying what little free time I can find, and enjoying that for the moment I can sleep in a little. (College schedules are the bestest.)
One thing I've been thinking about lately, though, is the idea of living for something bigger. My parents and I went to see Les Miserables over break, and as I watched them sing about Red and Black and ideals and desires, I wondered if we (as a people) would be willing to do what those men and women and children did. If, faced with true adversity, we would be willing to stand our ground, die for our beliefs, die for others. Those people knew they'd die. They knew they were giving up their lives, but they did it because they wanted a better France for the people they left behind. Would we be willing to do the same? I hope so, because apathy is a terrible evil.
So there. In summation: we're survivors of mediocre apocalyp...ses? Si? "Suddenly I'm finding myself needing to know the plural of apocalypse." (Guess the quote!) I'm without resolutions. And I'm against apathy. Ironically.
Happy New Year! I hope 2013 is a blessed and joyous year for everyone.
So, to start off 2013, let's celebrate that we made it through yet another uneventful and boring apocalypse!
On the last day of the world that wasn't, I was busy grading papers. So clearly I am doing well at being positive and optimistic about the future.
Or something.
Anyway, I'm a day late, but here's my annual new year post.
I hate to tell you all this, but I have very little in the way of "deep thoughts" or resolutions or anything. I heard on the radio this morning someone use the words "New Year's Resolutions," and that was the first time I even thought about whether I should make any. I decided that since I was too late in making them, that meant I didn't need any.
I mean, I do want some good things to come of 2013. I'll be starting school again in the fall (...suprise!...or not...), assuming I get accepted. :) I'll be teaching 4 classes this semester, so I'll be very busy and important. But beyond those things, I guess I haven't thought too much about things I want from this year.
I guess that says something. I wish the thing it said was that I am content in my life, but it's not. I think it probably is much more pessimistic and cynical. But those are not things I care to think about right now. Right now, I'm going to think about enjoying the last 6 months of my 20s, enjoying what little free time I can find, and enjoying that for the moment I can sleep in a little. (College schedules are the bestest.)
One thing I've been thinking about lately, though, is the idea of living for something bigger. My parents and I went to see Les Miserables over break, and as I watched them sing about Red and Black and ideals and desires, I wondered if we (as a people) would be willing to do what those men and women and children did. If, faced with true adversity, we would be willing to stand our ground, die for our beliefs, die for others. Those people knew they'd die. They knew they were giving up their lives, but they did it because they wanted a better France for the people they left behind. Would we be willing to do the same? I hope so, because apathy is a terrible evil.
So there. In summation: we're survivors of mediocre apocalyp...ses? Si? "Suddenly I'm finding myself needing to know the plural of apocalypse." (Guess the quote!) I'm without resolutions. And I'm against apathy. Ironically.
Happy New Year! I hope 2013 is a blessed and joyous year for everyone.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Things Jane Austen Taught Me
Megan and I have now read 5 of the 6 Austen novels (I know there are technically 7, but NO ONE wants to read Lady Susan.) and we came to many realizations last night. And thus,
Things Jane Taught Me:
1. If a man is handsome and charming, odds are he has done some despicable thing. However, Megan and I are likely to forgive him. Jane is not. But either way, he's not the hero, and he'll likely end up broke and disgraced in the end.
2. There will always be a certain blonde chick who tries to steal the hero, spreads nasty rumors about you, and harbors deep dark secrets. She's easy to spot, because she is ALWAYS played by this girl. Watch out for her. She's a smart one.
3. We should take up having balls again. It is inevitably where you meet your soul mate. I blame the lack of balls for my singlehood.
4. Brunettes are generally considered plain. I take great offense to this. However, plain girls (i.e. brunettes) are much easier to compliment. All you have to do is say that they're "almost pretty" today. It will, apparently, lift their spirits more than anything in the world.
5. A house is only good if the eating room is tolerably large.
6. Snooping through things in the home you're a guest at will always lead to the hero being mad at you. Do not snoop. Also, be on time for dinner.
7. There is always a girl named Jane. And she is usually very sweet. And quiet.
8. Fanny Price is the most loathsome heroine ever invented. Thus, she teaches us a) to not be creepily obsessed with your cousin, b) plays are not the equivalent of heavy drug use, c) to feel worse for the poor abused sisters, and d) sometimes you miss out on your soul mate when you're a horrible character with a gross obsession on a past crush.
9. Older men are better. (Apparently Jane had a thing for 40+ year olds...) Marry a rich man if you can, but always marry for love.
10. And finally, as long as you're a generally nice person who is funny and outspoken, it doesn't matter that you can't play the piano forte. The hero will love you anyway.
Things Jane Taught Me:
1. If a man is handsome and charming, odds are he has done some despicable thing. However, Megan and I are likely to forgive him. Jane is not. But either way, he's not the hero, and he'll likely end up broke and disgraced in the end.
2. There will always be a certain blonde chick who tries to steal the hero, spreads nasty rumors about you, and harbors deep dark secrets. She's easy to spot, because she is ALWAYS played by this girl. Watch out for her. She's a smart one.
3. We should take up having balls again. It is inevitably where you meet your soul mate. I blame the lack of balls for my singlehood.
4. Brunettes are generally considered plain. I take great offense to this. However, plain girls (i.e. brunettes) are much easier to compliment. All you have to do is say that they're "almost pretty" today. It will, apparently, lift their spirits more than anything in the world.
5. A house is only good if the eating room is tolerably large.
6. Snooping through things in the home you're a guest at will always lead to the hero being mad at you. Do not snoop. Also, be on time for dinner.
7. There is always a girl named Jane. And she is usually very sweet. And quiet.
8. Fanny Price is the most loathsome heroine ever invented. Thus, she teaches us a) to not be creepily obsessed with your cousin, b) plays are not the equivalent of heavy drug use, c) to feel worse for the poor abused sisters, and d) sometimes you miss out on your soul mate when you're a horrible character with a gross obsession on a past crush.
9. Older men are better. (Apparently Jane had a thing for 40+ year olds...) Marry a rich man if you can, but always marry for love.
10. And finally, as long as you're a generally nice person who is funny and outspoken, it doesn't matter that you can't play the piano forte. The hero will love you anyway.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Love Actually
I watched that movie last night. It's one of my favorite movies; I watch it year round. But I almost always watch it at least once around the holidays.
Part of what I like is that each story displays a different type of love, and different outcomes of it. There's obviously romantic love, but it's not just about that. And every time I watch it, I feel like I can identify with at least one character.
I've been looking for love around my little world a lot lately. And again, not just romantic love. I think part of it is that, because of where I am in my life right now, I hang out alone at my house a lot. (Well, Lizzy's here, but you know.) So introspection happens, and that can lead to a number of emotions and thoughts. As an extreme extrovert, I don't really like all the alone time, but it's probably for my own good, so I'm trying to make the most of it.
I've noticed in a few places that love is either really unexpectedly there or really sadly not. I've noticed that the places I want love to be most apparent are the places I am most hurt when I can't find it.
I don't want to get into a too-serious and instigating post. I don't want to deal with an argument. So I'm not going to go off on why I think some people are failing at love, or how we should be doing it better. You all know that. You have examples popping into your head right now. You can think about those on your own, but what I'd rather focus on is where I have seen love.
Yesterday, I went to lunch with a friend, and I was talking about something really hard for me to talk about. That we were in public made it more difficult, so I was intermittently crying. Which, if you know me well, you know I was particularly upset about. I hate crying in front of people, especially strangers. Our waitress asked if I was okay, and I of course said yes. She looked a little uncomfortable, which only made me try harder to stop crying.
But then she came with the check and said the restaurant had bought my pancakes for me. (BTW, if you're in Denver, go to Snooze on Larimer. Not only is it a good breakfast, but they're upstanding, wonderful people.) She said they hoped my day would be better. Obviously I started crying again, but this time it was happy tears.
That was love for a stranger. That was a waitress trying to help her customer.
It's not always this obvious. Sometimes I see love by the subtle looks a husband gives his wife when she's not looking. Sometimes it's by watching a friend console someone who is dealing with something difficult. Sometimes it's my dog licking my face in the morning.
There's this holiday coming up soon. You've probably heard of it. ;) But at a church thing a week ago, the worship leader said something that made me perk up. He said we need to remember not that Christ was born, but that Christ died. Christmas is just pointing us to Easter (slash Good Friday). Christmas is like the wrapping paper; Easter is the present.
And I was so glad to be reminded of that. Of the fact that all the theology I talk about, test my students on, etc., isn't worth anything if I don't first remember God loves me. I have it tattooed on my foot, so you'd think it'd be easier. But I so often forget. I look around for love, but all I really need to do is look at my own skin.
Rather than arguing about Christmas or "the holidays" or all the other things we get so caught up in during this time, let me ask you to think about love. Love for each other, love for God, love for you. Think about the different ways you can display love to those who need it. Think about those who may need it but are too afraid to ask.
(And just to spread the love, if you've seen any great examples, leave them in the comments!)
Part of what I like is that each story displays a different type of love, and different outcomes of it. There's obviously romantic love, but it's not just about that. And every time I watch it, I feel like I can identify with at least one character.
I've been looking for love around my little world a lot lately. And again, not just romantic love. I think part of it is that, because of where I am in my life right now, I hang out alone at my house a lot. (Well, Lizzy's here, but you know.) So introspection happens, and that can lead to a number of emotions and thoughts. As an extreme extrovert, I don't really like all the alone time, but it's probably for my own good, so I'm trying to make the most of it.
I've noticed in a few places that love is either really unexpectedly there or really sadly not. I've noticed that the places I want love to be most apparent are the places I am most hurt when I can't find it.
I don't want to get into a too-serious and instigating post. I don't want to deal with an argument. So I'm not going to go off on why I think some people are failing at love, or how we should be doing it better. You all know that. You have examples popping into your head right now. You can think about those on your own, but what I'd rather focus on is where I have seen love.
Yesterday, I went to lunch with a friend, and I was talking about something really hard for me to talk about. That we were in public made it more difficult, so I was intermittently crying. Which, if you know me well, you know I was particularly upset about. I hate crying in front of people, especially strangers. Our waitress asked if I was okay, and I of course said yes. She looked a little uncomfortable, which only made me try harder to stop crying.
But then she came with the check and said the restaurant had bought my pancakes for me. (BTW, if you're in Denver, go to Snooze on Larimer. Not only is it a good breakfast, but they're upstanding, wonderful people.) She said they hoped my day would be better. Obviously I started crying again, but this time it was happy tears.
That was love for a stranger. That was a waitress trying to help her customer.
It's not always this obvious. Sometimes I see love by the subtle looks a husband gives his wife when she's not looking. Sometimes it's by watching a friend console someone who is dealing with something difficult. Sometimes it's my dog licking my face in the morning.
There's this holiday coming up soon. You've probably heard of it. ;) But at a church thing a week ago, the worship leader said something that made me perk up. He said we need to remember not that Christ was born, but that Christ died. Christmas is just pointing us to Easter (slash Good Friday). Christmas is like the wrapping paper; Easter is the present.
And I was so glad to be reminded of that. Of the fact that all the theology I talk about, test my students on, etc., isn't worth anything if I don't first remember God loves me. I have it tattooed on my foot, so you'd think it'd be easier. But I so often forget. I look around for love, but all I really need to do is look at my own skin.
Rather than arguing about Christmas or "the holidays" or all the other things we get so caught up in during this time, let me ask you to think about love. Love for each other, love for God, love for you. Think about the different ways you can display love to those who need it. Think about those who may need it but are too afraid to ask.
(And just to spread the love, if you've seen any great examples, leave them in the comments!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)