Jots and Tittles

This has been cross-posted to my website.  Read it there!
Most early-morning commuters hate the sunrise.  Low on the horizon and blindingly bright, the sun makes it hard to see the road in one direction or another no matter how you're facing.  The beauty of the sunrise is lost in frustrated squinting and ineffective attempts to block enough light to see clearly.  And for the most part, on those occasions when I have found myself driving home from Ault early in the morning to make it to work on time, I have been among those who wish the sun wasn't quite so bright when it first comes up.

But this morning, for some reason, I couldn't be annoyed. Instead, Lewis's words above kept popping into my head, and I began to think about the sunrise very differently.  Now, I know that most Protestants are obligated to pretend they love C. S. Lewis even if they don't (Don't believe me?  See what Jon Acuff has to say about it...) but I'm not pretending.  His love for God and his love for literature, stories, and language both resonate with me strongly, and I absolutely love reading every little thing he's written.  He chooses every word with precision and care, and he can say more in one sentence than many people can say with an entire book.  The way he says what he says is often as impressive to me as what he says itself.  I don't think very many people can honestly say they appreciate him to the fullest - including me.  But I had an insight into just how beautifully crafted this particular sentence is as I drove home this morning.

The sunrise, you see, has long been a symbol of the resurrection of Christ.  Indeed, as Father Anthony explained the last time I was in his church, whenever it is possible, an Eastern Orthodox church is built so that the congregation faces the east.  This is not, as is the case with the Muslims, in order to face some holy place on the other side of the world, but in order to face the sunrise.  The sunrise is creation's daily testimony to the glorious fact that Jesus is risen.

Do you begin to see what Lewis was doing?  His vision is so steeped in Christ that he sees everything else, even down to the metaphor he uses to describe his vision, through a lens of Christianity.  Just as the sun rasies from the darkness of night to send it away and illuminate our daily lives, so the Son is risen from the darkness of death to defeat it forever and illuminate our daily lives.  And every single morning, all of creation points toward this most miraculous of truths as the sun reappears in the sky.

I'm not trying to suggest that you have never heard this quote before, or that you have never heard this metaphor before.  But if you're like me, you never put the two together, and you certainly never applied it to what happens every single morning, as it happened.  I suggest changing that.  If you wake before the sunrise, take a moment out of your normal routine to reflect.  If you don't, try it one day.  There's something indefinable about that short time between dawn and day, when the sun is just beginning its journey, that can give a great peace if you let it.  Take a look as the new day dawns.  Appreciate the beauty you see before you.  Watch the sun rise, and think about C. S. Lewis, about Father Anthony, and about the very first Easter, and proclaim along with all of creation,-Jaya-

(This has been cross-posted to my website.  Read it there!)

I'm going to say something now that might rock your world, but hang on. You see, I want to tell you that Christians don't know everything.

I know! Astonishing! There are things that, when we are being very honest with ourselves, completely flabbergast us. Like, for example, what happens to the “noble savage” (I know it's not PC, but I think it sounds so cool, and I've never been too scared of the PC police) – the one who lives his life according to what little revelation he has of God from nature and his “primitive” religion, but never hears the Gospel. Does he go to hell? Does God know that he would have accepted Jesus, too, had he heard the right message? Does he go to purgatory?

We don't know. But there are other, less serious questions which also baffle us, if we're being totally honest with ourselves, like whether or not God wants Christians to have awesome sex. Does God want Christians to have good sex? There's a large section of Christianity which believes that God absolutely wants us to have awesome, wonderful, amazing sex provided it's within the bounds of a marriage, because it's a good gift and as long as we use it in the way he intended it for us, we'll be fine. There are other Christians, apparently, who seem to think that asking the mere question is scandalous, to say the least. Like they somehow think that God gets all awkward and uncomfortable too, whenever we bring up sex, because it's not like he really meant for it to be so darn fun, and now it's turned into this big deal, and gah, the worst part of his evenings are always when all the married couples go off and have great, passionate, wonderful, non-sinful sex because he can't exactly get mad at them for doing what they're supposed to do, but darn it, they're just having too much fun... Because, you know, God is just as freaked out by sex as we are. How droll.

It's funny, because I used to be there. I used to be very fundamental. I mean, I still believe that the Bible is the most reliable source of knowledge about God we have, and that everything we experience in life should be tested against what the Bible says to make absolutely sure that it is, in fact, from God. I believe that there are some people who will go to hell, though I won't presume to say which ones. See, it's little things like that which make me not a fundamentalist. Because I will stand up and say with conviction that homosexual behavior is sinful and not to be tolerated, let alone encouraged, in a church community – but we are called to love those who struggle with homosexual desires and not treat it as though it's any worse of a sin when they slip up than when we slip up in struggling with our own sins. It's the unrepentant part that's the problem in this picture, not so much the homosexuality part. That's a sin, but so is lying, stealing, cheating on your wife, looking at porn, valuing money over God, and a whole host of other things that the rest of us struggle with, so it's not like being gay makes you a worse person than I am. You just struggle with a different sin than I do. At least you're struggling, and you haven't just given in, because that's where the problem lies.

But the extremest of the extreme refuse to hold any conviction lightly. Do I believe in dispensationalism? Not really, but I don't think you're going to hell if you do. Actually, Systematic Theology III had a whole unit on eschatology and what people think about the end times, and I still don't know what I believe about it, but I also don't think that it matters very much. And, to be quite honest, I think that the people who are such strong dispensationalists, or amillennialists, or whateverelseists, are completely missing the point of the passages they use to back up their views. The point is not whether Jesus is going to reign in a figurative millennium or a literal one, whether there's going to be a rapture (personally I don't think there will – it's always seemed kind of weird to assume that God's going to pull out all the loyal people and then let the bad ones go fight it out among themselves like some kind of global cage match for our amusement, because he doesn't strike me as that kind of God, but I digress). The point is that God loves us more than we could ever hope to comprehend, and we were really screwed up but he came into our screwed up world and died and rose again, not for his own amusement but because he wanted to fix it for us. He wants us to be with him, because we are his creation and he loves us. At that point, the little details of how the last couple events in the big time-line are going to go down really seems superfluous. Definitely not worth arguing over.

So I really struggle with people who post things on the web that fill the stereotypes of the fundamentalist Christian who is so narrow-minded and judgmental that Jesus himself would be cringing. Or, you know, calling them Pharisees and perhaps even a brood of vipers, because Jesus wasn't really the sort to just sit back and let people like that destroy others.

Take, for example, alittleleaven. Now, I do not know this man personally, so I don't want to say anything about him as a person. For all I know, he could be the sweetest, most loving person in his whole state. But that's definitely not how he comes off in the videos he has posted questioning the theology of people like Joel Osteen and Rick Warren.  (By the way, I love how he compares Warren to a member of the Evil Empire on that video.  Because, didn't you know, the Emperor preached that God wants us to do what we were created to do, too!)

Now, I have my quibbles with Osteen and Warren. Osteen does seem to slip into the prosperity gospel too often for me to be wholly comfortable with him, and Warren the same to a lesser extent. I haven't finished reading Purpose-Driven Life yet (my first copy was *ahem* borrowed and never returned, and the second I got at a thrift store for about a dollar and just haven't spent the time with it) but from what I read, it did seem to flirt with prosperity gospel now and again. However, little as I know about Osteen, Warren has always seemed to be a pretty orthodox kind of guy. Not entirely perfect – none of us can truthfully claim that – but his heart is in the right place and he has some good things to say about Christianity. I would like to say the same of Osteen, but I don't know enough to say for sure, so I'll hold off.

But this "alittleleaven" person was ripping into them, completely unfairly, expecting them to live up to an incredibly narrow and limited view of what Christianity is. This kind of thing has bothered me for quite some time, so I'm going to address it here. I would like to remind us that salvation is not only about forgiving sin.

Yes, I'll give you a moment to let you recover from the shock.

Are we good? Have I thoroughly rattled your cage yet? Excellent. Now, let me explain. Salvation is definitely partly about forgiving sin. It might even be mostly about forgiving sin, though I don't know that I'd say so. But it is very certainly not only about forgiving sin. It is about restoring us – and all of creation with us – to a right relationship with God. His creation is meant for his presence. Not just on the obvious side, the “well the whole creation would cease to exist if God stopped supporting it for a split second” side, although that is also true. In the garden, before the fall, back when things were the way they were meant to be, all of creation was in constant fellowship with God. He walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. He talked with them. He provided for them. He was there. Salvation is about restoring the world to that, and maybe even something a little bit better. Thinking that salvation is forgiveness of sins alone is such a narrow view of what is really going on. Of course God wants to forgive your sins. But that is not the goal. He forgives your sins in order to have a relationship with you. It's not like you're forgiven and then you go on your merry way. You want to approach God, your sin makes that impossible, and so he clears away that huge, lumbering obstacle and now you can approach him, you can have a relationship with him, and it's redeemed. And all of creation is redeemed, too. We're not saved for harps and white robes and fluffy clouds and halos. We're saved for a party with God on the new earth that he's redeemed. Revelation describes it as a wedding feast.

Have you ever been to a wedding feast? I'm right at that time of my life where approximately everyone I know is getting married. I have been to at least one wedding per summer (two, this summer) for the past several years. I've been to quite a few wedding feasts. And they are not boring, solemn, stuffy events. There's great food, and laughter, and dancing, and silly traditions, and cake, and lots of joy and celebration centered around people that everyone present genuinely loves. (Even the most awkward wedding I have ever gone to, in which I knew neither the bride or the groom but was invited because my boyfriend did, was still awesome, and by the end of it I really did love Ben and Dana and was genuinely rejoicing for them. And since then I've gotten to know them a little bit better and I still love them. Weddings are just a great place for genuine love to happen, and not just the romantic sort.)

And you know what? To do all of that dancing (yes! Dancing! It's not a sin!) we need bodies. This is one of the most exciting things I have learned in seminary. I get a body when I die. And it's going to be a redeemed body, so while it'll be kind of like the body I have now in that it'll still be uniquely Brittany, it's not going to have all the PCOS and the overweight problems and the brokenness that this one has. Do you have any idea how much I'm looking forward to feasting with God and all his people, and getting to drink all the tea I want, eat all the delicious bread I want, all the ice cream I want, all the Snickers bars I want – and all the while enjoy a chat with C. S. Lewis, Jane Austen and Paul (the top three on my Christian Heroes I Want to Eat Dinner With list), about how awesome our host is, how much we love Jesus, and whatever else we want? That, my friends, would be heaven. Doesn't that sound amazing?

Now. Which version of salvation do you like better: forgiveness of sins, or the Party of Awesomeness With God and Friends that I just described? I sure hope it's the second one, because that's the one we get. It's not that forgiveness of sins isn't part of that. It's just that there's SO much more to it, and I hate it when people focus so much on one tiny detail that they miss the big picture of God and the huge, amazing, mind-bogglingly cool thing he's doing.

Certainly, you can pull texts out of the Bible which say that God forgives our sins, and we were all horrible sinners who deserved death and eternal damnation and Jesus saved us from all that. But you're missing half the picture when you do that, and it's the prettiest half! This is why prooftexting is such an awful thing. Because then you really are doing the blind man thing, and thinking that because you've held the elephant's tail, the elephant must be a rope. Only you're really worse, because you're just willfully squeezing your eyes shut, and if you'd just open them up you'd see that the rope is a very tiny part of a very big elephant, and you're missing out on some of its cooler features, like its awesomely long nose, or its big fan-like ears.

So, can I please, please, please ask my dear brothers and sisters in Christ to stop holding on to every little detail with such an iron grip? There are things about God that we don't know. That's okay. He's God – we don't have to know everything about him, like he knows everything about us. There are things we can hold loosely. If God did not create the world in six literal days and if perhaps he used some kind of evolution to get some of his work done, it will not be the end of Christianity. He's God – I think he can use whatever he wants to. Focus on holding tightly to the more important truths: God is love, he loves us so much that he gave his life so that we could be with him forever, and he will never ever stop being as awesome as he is right now and has always been. The rest of it doesn't matter one billionth as much as that. As long as we have that one truth, the rest of it we can hold lightly in our grasp and know that we're just trying to make sense of what we think we understand, and we don't have all the answers. But God does, and that is enough.

-Jaya-

Friends, I just want to ask you, today, to just look at this blog post, friends, and just read what he has to say, friends, because it's just really good, friends, and I just think you'd all really enjoy it.  So, my friends, just click on this link, friends, and just enjoy it!
http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/03/96-using-gods-favorite-word.html

This article has been cross-posted to my website.  Read it there!

Lately I have been painfully aware of well-meaning Christians who genuinely believe that we still live in a Christian nation, and/or that we were founded by Christians or under Christian principles. This breaks my heart, for I wish it were true... but it is not. Let me give you an example.

Today, I received this email from a dear friend at Fuller:
Now, while I could write on for pages and pages as have done the other intelligent Americans in this country about how this sounds WAY more like 1984 and Big Brother than I could have imagined for a man who has held his office for a mere seven months and change, but I think that has been articulated very well by others. (Although, may I point you in this direction? Here I found a quote I really liked: "If anything, this kind of reaction to dissent is going to make the dissenters even angrier than they already are. The United States was founded by just the sort of people that President Obama and his Congressional allies disdain, gun toting, tax resisting red necks who didn't flinch when the King's men came marching up the lane to put down a group of patriots that they thought of as a 'mob' as well.")

But, like I said, that's not my point.  My point is the last two paragraphs of the email I was sent (and let me stress that I enjoyed it to that point).  To reiterate:

How I wish it was so!  But, as they say, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.  Wishful thinking will not get us anywhere.  We are not a Christian nation.  We are a nation which is so fortunate as to enjoy the presence of many, many Christians, who have had a formative impact on the development of our country.  But those men we affectionately refer to as "Founding Fathers" were mostly deists, tainted by the enlightenment disdain for anything that smacks of the supernatural and denying that ultimate truth is to be found in Jesus Christ or in the Bible (which, by the way, is not the only, or even the greatest, manifestation of God's word - that honor goes to the former: Jesus).  The truth is, while we have liked to think of ourselves as a Christian nation, there are many, many people who are not Christian, whether or not they hold to any other faith, and the truth is, we have to deal with that.  The truth is, we know that Christianity is True, but we aren't going to convince the rest of the nation of that overnight.  The truth is, the Triune God was rejected by at least some of the founding fathers, if not all of them. 

We need to quit living like we're a Christian nation with some bad leadership.  We need to start living like we're Christians who are fortunate enough to live in a nation that guarantees that we are free from the most severe persecution and free to worship with other Christians in the manner we see fit.

Now, I do not advocate for the fictitious separation of church and state.  The Constitution only insists that there be no state religion; it does not say that the state must approach the church as though it were poisionous for its very existence.  I think that anyone who calls himself a Christian and does not allow his Christianity to influence every single aspect of his life - politics especially - is a hypocrite.

But if we are going to be effective in our work under the Great Commission, we need to quit thinking that we're a Christian nation that has gone astray.  The USA is not the new nation of Israel.  It's not the nation that God has singled out to be his new people and there aren't going to be any prophets sent from God to the USA calling his people back to a right relationship with him.  God's people are the Christians (and whether or not his people are also still the Israelites is an issue I am not going to address here).  If he chooses to send prophets - and prophetesses! - to the Christians to call them back to a right relationship with him, which I think he does, all the better.  But he sends them to Christians, not to the USA.  God's people are no longer confined to a political or geographical boundary, but are found throughout the world, and that means that you don't have to be an American to be a Christian - nor do you have to be a Christian to be an American.  I am not saying whether this is right or wrong.  I am saying that's the way it is, and we need to learn to deal with reality, and quit living in a little American=Christian bubble.  It's irresponsible and harmful to the spreading of the gospel and living truly Christlike lives.

Because, you see, we can call out other Christians when they are not following Christ in love.  They have, so to speak, signed up for living a Christian lifestyle, and when they fail to do so we have a responsibility to call them out (lovingly) and guide them back to the path they have chosen to walk.  But how can we force those who have not signed up for Christianity to follow the rules of Christianity?  May I remind you of 1 Corinthians 5:12-13? "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside."  Please, read 1 Corinthains 5-6.  We are supposed to judge those inside the church, to arbitrate differences and to keep each other in line - lovingly, as always.  We are supposed to let God judge those outside the church.  

This is going to require a radical change in the way we Christians live our lives.  We cannot assume that we live in a Christian nation.  We must live as though the people we meet are in need of the Gospel, not as though they already have it.  And if we want to demonstrate the good that Christianity can do for our nation, we need to show the good that it does in our lives, in the lives of our churches, and in the relationships we have with non-Christians.  Only then can we begin to say that Christian values ought to inform what the nation does - when we have proved that they are good values, worth following, when we can point to our churches and our lives and our relationships and say, "That's why Christianity is so wonderful, so worth having, and that's why we should incorporate its principles back into our government."

There is more to be said about this, but I think I've rambled long enough for now.  Hopefully this has given you some food for thought, and I welcome any comments you might have on what I've said.

Blessings to you all!

-Jaya-

This subject has been cropping up in unexpected places all week, and now I have encountered it again here.  It's time I finally addressed it.  Why do those hostile to Christianity (and faith in general, they will claim, but nine times out of ten they will level their attacks toward Christains and leave those of other faiths alone) insist that faith and science cannot coexist?  The arrogance of such people, assuming that no educated person could possibly believe in such naieve superstition is laughable.  

Every day, I have evidence to the contrary.  My roommate, a microbiologist who works in the lab at the hospital down the street, has explained to me more than once that her work with bacteria and viruses is crucial to her faith in God.  My mother, another microbiologist who is pursuing her master's degree in that very field (although her bent runs to our own cells, not the organisms that invade our bodies), also says that she finds strength for her faith in her studies.  My father has been practicing veterinary medicine for longer than I can remember and he too finds reason to glorify God in his scientific pursuits.  The most faith-boosting class I took in college was a freshman level astronomy course.  Whenever Dr. Culver would bring in slides, it was like having my own private worship session, right there in class.  I may not remember a lot of the physics we were taught, but  Iwill never foret sitting in the darkened classroom, staring at an image of Saturn, and struggling to sit still because of the awe for God that swelled within me.  Certainly, those who are of scientific mind can and do hold a belief in God.

So why this hostility to the very idea that faith and science can and do hold equal value to the same person?Why is it deemed impossible that scientific reasoning can lead a person to God?   Why is it that a man of science is thought to be somehow "above" faith in God?

I was watching some documentaries on the Discovery channel (I know, I'm a complete nerd - and proud of it) that addressed stories found in the Bible: Exodus, and Sodom and Gomorrah.  In each case, they demonstrated how the Biblical witness could be accurate, using scientific means.  And they talked as if this somehow negated the possibility that God was involved!  As if all their scientific reasoning, proof that what the Bible says in regard to historical events is at least plausible, if not demonstrably true, automatically rules out God's involvement.  But that simply does not follow! Just because something took place by means of scientifically understood processes, it does not mean that God was not behind said scientific processes.  On the contrary - God, being the creator of everything, created the laws of science and therefore it is perfectly logical that he would choose to work through them rather than constantly violate them every time he wanted something accomplished.  

And then there's the gentleman interviewed in the article linked above, who obviously belives that, because humans seem to have an innate need to worship some sort of deity (which has been demonstrated scientifically), therefore there is no such deity. (On a side note, don't you just love how he doesn't ever answer the questions asked in that interview?  He provides answers, sure, but not to the questions that were asked.  It's like reading the transcripts of two different interviews, where someone has come along and pasted the answers from one below the questions of another.)

These sorts of assumtions are flawed at best, idiotic at worst.  Forgive me if I sound abrupt, but honestly, how blind do you have to be not to recognize that the most plausible explanation for "humans have been scientifically shown to be hard-wired to believe in God" is not "therefore, there is no God" but just the opposite - "therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there is some sort of God!"  Why else would we be so disposed?  What purpose does it serve us?  It provides comfort, but many atheists have proved that such comfort is not necessary for survival.  And beyond that... what does it do that something else does not also provide, from an evolutionary standpoint?

He speaks of this predisposition as if it's some new insight which he holds and wishes to share with humanity.  Unfortunately for him, this is not new at all.  C. S. Lewis hinted at this with his famous line, "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."  Paul wrote about it hundreds of years ago, and cites it as reason to recognize God's sovereignity over the whole world: "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." (Rom 1:19-23)  

How true that is!  Claiming to be wise, they became fools.  Do they think we don't know, don't sense intuitively that we are wired to believe in and worship God?  Do they think we are so stupid as to not recognize (and celebrate!) that there are scientific explanations to what happened in the Biblical stories?  Did it ever once occur to them that science can strengthen our faith, rather than overthrow it?

And furthermore, why do they care so much?  What is it to them that other people find comfort in worshipping a God who encourages compassion and love toward all men?  Why can't they just let us live our lives?

The clever ones will argue that atrocious things have been done in the name of religion.  And this is true.  They neglect to mention, however, that atrocious things have also been done in the name of Darwinism (the Holocaust comes to mind - the whole idea of racial cleansing comes straight from the idea of survival of the fittest) or in the name of Communism (do I even need to tell you what I'm thinking of here?), or in the name of politics (watch The Mission for a perfect example of political manipulation destroying lives) or because of revenge or hatred that had nothing to do with God.  They also neglect to mention that people like myself, my family, and my friends, as well as hundreds of thousands of other Christians around the world and throughout history, have never done anything to harm anyone.  Of course we have sinned, and we acknowledge that, but the vast majority of us are no worse than your average atheist (some would even argue that we're better but I won't open that can of worms here).

Bear with me.  This will be an angry rant.  Very, very angry.  And frustrated.  Angry and frustrated.  And hormonal.  Reader beware.  You have been warned.

So far, I am mostly enjoying my seminary classes.  They are a lot of work and there are some things that are confusing as heck, but for the most part I am learning a lot about God and already finding ways to apply it to my life, which is super cool.

BUT.  I should have known better, but I genuinely expected not to have to deal with the infiltration of politically correct speech in my seminary classes.  This is Fuller, for heaven's sake, and they're supposed to be conservative and level-headed.  And yet here I am, reading books which refuse to use pronouns for God (do you have ANY idea how ANNOYING that is? ...some of you do...) or which use B.C.E. and C.E. instead of B.C. and A.D. when talking about dates.  I could cry.

Granted, I'm a bit hypersensitive to the pronoun thing.  It was the first inkling that something was wrong at my home church, the place where Christianity fell apart at the seams in favor of a more manageable and liberal-friendly god whose main goal was not to offend anyone, except of course for those lousy conservatives.  We can offend them as much as we want because they are wrong anyway, and besides it's not like they have feelings that actually MATTER or anything.  But my main memory of that church, when things started to get wonky, was when Pastor Lynn insisted on using the most awkwardly-worded sentences since The Eye of Argon in order to avoid using masculine pronouns for God.  And now my Systematic Theology 1 teacher insists on using it as well.  It was bad enough that he stated that we would be graded down for not using gender-inclusive language in papers.  At the time, I didn't think he was referring to language about God.  Now, I'm not so sure.  But I still used masculine pronouns in reference to God in the paper I turned in for that class on Friday.  I will not destroy English grammar so that the liberals can feel better about themselves.  God has chosen to reveal himself in the Bible to us in almost exclusively masculine terms, and the few comparisons that involve God and something feminine are in the form of similes, not metaphors, which hold a much lesser degree of comparison.  HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO GO OVER THIS?  AARRGGHH.  It's not "Godself."  It's "HIMself."  "Godself" is not a word, and you sound like a freaking MORON when you say it.  It just makes you sound uneducated and naive.  And I refuse to do it!  I am willing to compromise and use gender-inclusive language when referring to humans.  I still maintain that most women are intelligent enough to discern when an author is using the gender-neutral "he" or the masculine "he" and that to suggest otherwise is an insult to her intelligence, but as that is a lesser concern than messing with God's self-revelation, I'll let it go.  But I refuse to talk about God in grammatically idiotic ways.  I have too high a respect for God and for the English language, in that order.

And then there's our readings for Isaiah.  I have long thought that the idiotic modern convention of substituting B.C.E. and C.E. for the traditional (and accurate, by the way) B.C. and A.D. was, well, idiotic, moronic, stupid, delusioned, ignorant, and overall rather dumb.  Who do they think they're fooling, anyway?  Call a spade a spade, people.  Nobody is going to rework our entire dating system in order to make it NOT centered around Christ, so you're stuck with this being 2008 (years after the death of Christ) whether you like it or not.  So, rather than try to change the way the entire world thinks about the progression of time, we're just going to muddy the waters a little bit and call the time after Jesus the "common era" and the time before Jesus the time "before common era."  Because nobody will be smart enough to figure out that we're still organizing our ENTIRE DATING SYSTEM around Jesus Christ.  Of course.  That's called DENIAL, boys and girls, and it's more than just a river in Egypt.  It's rather stupid.  What, do you think it's somehow less offensive to have the "arbitrary" division between common era and before-common-era (by the way, who the hell decided against the more logical pre-common era?  Doesn't that make tons more sense?) be Jesus Christ, rather than simply coming out and saying that, as part of our history, the people who ran things at the time when important decisions like how we were going to talk about time were made were Christians, and wanted to honor Jesus by organizing their dating system around his life?  I don't know, it seems to me like it doesn't get rid of the problem to change the name.  Just makes you look foolish.

But it's even worse when CHRISTIAN authors fall into this ludicrous trap.  Come ON, people.  Who do you think you're going to offend?  Presumably, we're all Christians, here - or at least that seems to be the audience you are addressing in your books.  But today, in ALL of my readings, every single one of them has used the B.C.E. and C.E. notation.  One says that he is "follow[ing] a common convention in biblical [sic] studies."  Why the HELL is that common?  In Biblical studies?  The one place where it still ought to be ok to stand up without shame and affirm that the dating system we know is created in honor of our Lord, Jesus Christ.  That sickens me.  Seriously.  That is beyond unacceptable.  This fear of offense is permeating everywhere, even our conservative churches!  I don't think many of you noticed this, but Jesus didn't exactly go around fearing that he was going to offend anyone - in fact, he offended a LOT of people! 

Thank God that the church in China is praying for us to be persecuted.  Thank God that their prayers are being answered.  We have become selfish and weak, and we can't even stand up for the most trivial of things, like pronouns and dating conventions.  How on earth can we then be expected to stand up for the important things, like the fact that Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life? 

We're in serious trouble.

-Jaya-

It's coming down to the wire, and I'm very rapidly running out of time to find a home or a job in Seattle.  I'm heading up there the third week of August.  Not a lot of time at all.  And I haven't got so much as a clue as to what I'm doing.  I'm scared out of my wits, which makes it a little bit hard to break out of the attending paralysis, which in turn makes me more terrified, which makes it harder to break out...  it's not good.  I'm taking the biggest leap of faith I have ever dreamt of doing right now and I feel like I'm not doing a very good job.

And yet, with all of that going through my mind, I am at peace with the whole thing.  I know this makes practically no sense.  It's kind of hard to be at peace while panicking.  Trust me, I know.  And yet, here I am, completely freaked out but knowing with that deep-seated confidence that transcends questioning, that God has me firmly in His grasp and I am going to be all right, somehow.  I don't think thins is something my parents can understand, or even want to try.  It must be frustrating for them to be freaking out over this and watch me seem to be so calm about the whole thing.  And I'm not, not on one level, not just under the surface, but somewhere deeper inside of me I know that I'm okay.  So there's no need to worry.  I'm doing what I can do, and that will be enough

This is a very bizarre thing, and I'm not sure that writing about it has really helped me understand it any better.  I was kind of hoping that it would.  But it is nice to know that whatever happens, I'm covered.  Even if I wind up freaking myself out every night and even if I wind up moving into some place on a month-to-month lease sight-unseen, even if I don't have a job right off the bat and I have to scramble even more when I'm up there, somehow or other, God will work it to my good.  Even if it doesn't seem very good at the time.  So as scared as I am of the trials that are sure to come, I'm also secure in the knowledge that I'll survive, and if I don't I'll be home. 

How different that freedom is from the kind so commonly touted in America.  And yet how much more freeing it is!  I so often feel as though, free as we are in this country from oppression of the traditional sense, we have found replacements for those oppressions in self-created versions, so that we are so bound by our work and our need for material crap that we can't move out from under them for fear of being crushed by the unknown.  And as for me, what's the worst that can happen?  There are people who love me very much and who will help to take care of me if I wind up in a position where I can't take care of myself.  And if I die, well, what's so bad about that?  Score for me, I get to go and hang out with God!  Hooray!  I am free of any need to worry, free to do what I need to do and secure in the knowledge that God can fill in the gaps.  That's way better than the freedom to do anything else.  That, I think, is true freedom.

Maybe that did help a little bit, after all.  I think I can stand to go back to the search for a little while longer.  And who knows?  Maybe this time I'll find the right place.

So, while looking for housing and jobs in Seattle, I ran across an ad for a roommate posted by someone named "Navneet."  Being uncomfortable with the idea of male roommates and uncertain as to what gender "Navneet" actually is, I looked it up on a baby names site and found that it's a Punjabi name (cool!!!!!!) for boys (less cool).  But Miss India for some recent year was also named Navneet so I don't know what that means. :/

Anyway, on a whim, while waiting for another page to load, I decided to look up my Internet name, Jaina.  I know the roots of my name ("Brittany" is a region in France), but the name I chose for myself I know only because of the Star Wars books - Jaina is the name of Leia and Han Solo's daughter.  It was given to me by a dear friend of mine way back in middle school, and I've never outgrown it.  But I never really knew what it meant, either.

Apparently, "Jaina" is a form of "Jane" (that's a shocker...) and means "God is gracious."  Well, how cool is that?  I love it!  Who'd have thought that, long after I outgrew my obsession with the Star Wars extended universe (well, mostly...), my nickname would still fit me in a completely different way.

So anyway.  That made me happy and I thought I'd share.  And now, it's time to give up and go to bed, because I'm wiped out.

-Jaya-

I know it has been too long since I last posted anything.  I don't have as much time to get online here in Brighton as I did in the Fort, and honestly I haven't had a whole lot to say worth sharing.  But now, after I've been to General Assembly, I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the whole thing.  Since I don't have time to do that right now, I'll post only the confession I wrote as I sat waiting for the plane home, which I think is an appropriate reaction to what I experienced.  More about that in a later entry.  For now, I really only have time to post the confession itself.

A PERSONAL CONFESSION OF FAITH IN RESPONSE TO THE 218TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (USA)
by Brittany Dowdy

In light of the actions taken by the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), I felt it right and necessary to lay forth now my personal confession of faith.  It is my hope that this confession will serve two purposes: first and most importantly, to glorify and honor God; second, to provide encouragement for my brothers and sisters who fight alongside me in order to restore our church to God.  I write in the confessional tradition of the church, recognizing and honoring the confessions which came before mine and affirming that I, too, write in response to a threat to the true faith.

I confess that there is one God, who reveals Himself to us in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  I confess that this God is holy, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, just, merciful and good.  I confess that the Father, out of His great love for us, sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to offer Himself up in atonement for our sins.  It is historically beyond question that a man named Jesus and called the Christ lived over 2000 years ago in what is now known as the Middle East; I confess that this Jesus is the Messiah of whom it is prophesied in the Old Testament.  He is fully human and fully divine. He lived a perfect life, without sin.  After three years of ministry and miracles, He was crucified, died, and was buried, and He rose again on the third day.  I confess that His sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of all of humanity, and no act of man can add to or subtract from its work.  I confess that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that there is no path to salvation and a right relationship with God except through Him.1

I confess that there is Truth in religion and that religious pluralism is illogical and escapist, and wholly incompatible with Christianity.  I confess that this Truth is expressed in the person of Jesus Christ and through the Holy Bible, God’s word to us.  Furthermore, this Truth is vibrant, living, and holy, and while it most emphatically is not “tolerant” in the way the world currently defines that much-abused word, it is the most loving Truth that exists.  It is our responsibility and our privilege as disciples of Christ to proclaim this Truth to the world without compromising or diluting it to make it more acceptable to our audience.  I confess that it is only through the action of the Holy Spirit that a person accepts this Truth, and that proclaiming it will not always be easy or popular; however, that in no way diminishes our call to continue.  I confess that God’s love is proclaimed in this Truth and that it is not an act of love to alter or dilute it as we spread it throughout this broken and confused world.

I confess that humans love because God first loves us.  His love is not the mindless and weak devotion that is put forward by many, but a strong, challenging, tough love which is never satisfied to accept sin but works tirelessly to bring its object to a more perfect state.  I confess that, because of God’s love for us, He works in and through our lives to eliminate, not affirm, sin, and to prune us to make us fruitful.  I confess that this process is often difficult and hurtful, but it is necessary for our good.

I confess that God, in His sovereign will, guided the hands of many men in the recording of His Word to His people, which record we have today in the Holy Bible.  The Bible is the primary source of God’s revelation to us and through it we are to test and interpret all other revelation we may receive.  I confess that God is powerful enough to maintain the Spirit-breathed nature of His Word even throughout the ravages of time and translation.  I confess that some translations are more faithful to the original meaning of the author than others, and that these more faithful texts are more useful; however, His Word, faithfully translated or in the original language, is always useful for teaching, reproof, evidence, correction, and training in righteousness.2

I confess that sin remains unacceptable and that, were it not for Christ’s work on the cross, the sin of each and every human being is sufficient to separate him permanently from the presence of God.  I confess that the Bible is clear on the sinful nature of many of the popular trends of the world today.  This is true especially of homosexual behavior, on which the Biblical witness is clear and consistent: it is sinful.  I confess that it is not love to affirm those of our fellow Christians who sin by practicing homosexual behavior.  Rather, the loving thing to do is to gently correct the misunderstandings regarding the issue of homosexuality and help those who struggle with it to repent and be healed.  I confess that the Biblical witness is also clear and consistent in its definition of marriage: that it is a permanent covenantal relationship between one man and one woman, and this relationship is meant to reflect the relationship between God and His church.  This means that a man is meant to love his wife and give everything for her as Christ did for the church, and that a woman is meant to love her husband and submit to his will as the church does for Christ.3  I realize that this is a difficult teaching for women today, but that does not make it less true.

Finally, I confess that God is eternal, unchanging, and absolutely sovereign.  His power is over all the world and nothing happens that He does not or cannot turn to good for those who love him.4

These confessions are not (and are not intended to be) exhaustive or final.  I do hope that my understanding of God will continue to develop and grow as I continue in my journey with Him.  I write to His glory and honor always, and to the encouragement of my fellow faithful disciples.  To God be the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever and ever. 
            AMEN

1 John 14:6
2 2 Timothy 3:16; the Greek word “elegchos” is used both here (translated as “reproof”) and in Heb. 1:11 (translated as “evidence” or “conviction”) - therefore, I have elected to use both words in my confession as I believe that the Bible is also useful as evidence.
3 Ephesians 5:25-33
4 Romans 8:28


-Jaya-

Got a letter from Fuller yesterday afternoon, which I didn't read until last night.

I've been accepted to Fuller Northwest!  Hooray!  So that means that I'll be in Seattle come the fall, unless I hear back from the housing folks in Pasadena and transfer myself down there.  Honestly, I'd rather be in Seattle, but if I get housing in Pasadena I'll go there instead.  Still, God has done some amazing things in the past few days.  I heard back from Group and they want to pursue an internship with me, after I had given up all hope of that.  Then I heard from my friend Rachel who might have a place for me to live this summer, meaning I wouldn't have to commute from Brighton, which seeing as how gas prices are so freaking high might well be more expensive than living here, especially if I take the bus and a bike to Loveland from Fort Collins rather than drive.  And it means that I get to stay with my friends and don't have to go back to the boonies of Brighton where I'm not really friends with anyone anymore and I'd feel so dreadfully out of the loop and lonely.  So that's happy.  And now I hear back from Fuller, who is happy to accept me.  Hooray, hooray, hooray!  It's so nice to have things work out!  Thank you so, so much, God, that things are working out!  Forgive me for ever having doubted that they would.  And please let me get the job with Group.  I know that whatever happens is completely in your control - and you've brought me this far, which is AWESOME, so I have no doubt that you'll bring me the rest of the way to where I need to be.  ^.^

-Jaya-

I don't know whether I'm even coherent at this point. I watched "Chicken Chicken Chicken" on YouTube today and giggled for at least 20 minutes at the thought of doing it for my thesis presentation. It's not THAT funny... except it really is, in a completely ridiculous way. Actually, at this point, I could probably listen to freakin' "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" and understand the deep and profound meaning behind the lyrics. And I'm not even on any mind-altering substances, unless you count a severe lack of sleep and several weeks' worth of school-induced stress. So maybe I'm not the best authority.

Anyway, considering that, the following sounds pretty darn good to me. Perhaps I will view it in a month and realize that I might have unknowingly inhaled any number of mind-altering substances, because the only other explanation for my current state of mind is multiple alien abductions, and as much as I love the X-Files I don't really believe in alien abductions.  ...Most days.

But I'm going to turn it in to my GR teacher tomorrow as my second-to-last journal entry, and it's going to be freaking sweet. Especially the part about abortion. I think I toned it down a bit, especially toward the beginning when I thought I might still care, but by the time I got to the abortion bit I pretty much decided, you know what, screw it, I'm right anyway so who cares what she thinks. And then I realized what I'd done and backed off toward the end. But still.

Well, maybe you should read it for yourself.

( Penultimate GR Journal OF DOOM, because everything's cooler when you add OF DOOM to the end. )

So, there you have it.  I'd like to say that it's pretty good but I'm really in no position to judge.  When I first wrote it I thought, "Wow! That's really amazing!  I'm going to post it on the LJ for all to see!" and now that I've posted it I'm thinking, "Hmm, maybe this was a bad idea..." but it's 2:30 in the morning and I still have reading to do before I can sleep.  So I'm going to go ahead and post it, and we'll hash out the details of whether that was a good idea some other time, eh?  All righty then. 

Peace out.

-Jaya-

I only have about half an hour to write this, so it won't be as in-depth as I would like.  However, since my Goddess Religions professor was kind enough to attempt to indoctrinate me regarding her position on abortion, I thought I would air my own views on the subject.  It shouldn't take long; they are quite simple.

If you're looking for a very long, in-depth, thorough and (in my own humble opinion) excellent defense of the pro-life position, I suggest reading Rebecca Kiessling's essay.  I especially like her reasoning regarding partial-birth and other late-term abortions - at that point, it has NOTHING to do with the mother's body, as it's quite possible to deliver the child by c-section or inducing labor, and in many cases the child stands a chance to live.  In those cases, is it not the obligation of the mother to attempt to preserve life where it is clearly possible to do so?  What right does the mother have to dictate that this child be killed, when very little effort on her part will secure its survival (or at least make survival possible)?  If she wants to avoid raising it, there are plenty of adoption agencies out there which would be glad to help her find a home for her child.  At that point, it is nothing but sheer, selfish laziness that is prompting the mother to seek abortion.

My point of view on the matter is somewhat simpler.  The only time in which abortion is permissible is when the mother's or the child's life is threatened by carrying the baby full term.  In the case of the mother, she has the right to act in what is, essentially, self-defense, and save her own life at the cost of another's, assuming that is the only way she can save herself.  I may not like it, but I will grant that right.  In the case of the child, well, if it won't survive the birth anyway, why make the mother suffer through a pregnancy that will come to nothing?  However, in all other cases - including that of rape - while the inconvenience of a nine-month pregnancy may be unappealing, that is absolutely NO reason to deprive an innocent child of its life.  The child is not the guilty party in the matter, regardless of how one thinks of it.  And honestly, the majority of abortions are done in cases where it was simply inconvenient for the woman to be pregnant, for whatever reason, and she puts her own personal comfort and ease ahead of another person's life, for which she is wholly responsible and with which she has been entrusted its sole care.  That's not only selfish to the extreme, but it's quite sick.  Kiessling gives an example of a man snowed in to a cabin with a child who is too small to reach any of the food stored in the cupboards, for nine months.  If he were to refuse to get food for the child because it would inconvenience him (perhaps he has a bum shoulder which makes reaching up to the cupboards painful), and the child starved to death because of his inaction, would not everyone be up in arms?  He has the means to provide for this child, and while it may have been inconvenient for him to do so, that does not absolve him of the responsibility to do it. 

It frustrates me to no end to hear all these women saying that "it's my right to choose what happens to my body."  What kind of selfish, unfeeling, stuck-up, evil person are you?  How dare you?  Nothing angers me quite like that. 

But anyway.  I should head to class.  Just thought I'd get that off my chest.  :)

-Jaya-

I can't believe it.

Wait - strike that.  I can believe it, which makes it all the more depressing.  While I was looking online for the rubric for an upcoming Goddess Religions assignment, I stumbled across another article posted on the class's electronic reserve page.  This article is called "A Consistent Life Ethic?: Supporting Life After Birth" and is by Rosemary Radford Ruether, and can be found for free on this page.  Considering that, on the class page, the article is referred to as "Abortion/Ruether," I of course was immediately curious, and opened it up.

Actually, the article itself is pretty impressive, when you consider that it manages to spend two pages critiquing the Catholic church without once even mentioning the Bible or anything even vaguely resembling God, AND that it covers almost every single one of the liberal hot issues: abortion, the war in Iraq (and with it the nation's completely failure to do anything good, in her not-so-humble opinion), global climate change, global disarmament, unfair distribution of wealth... am I missing anything?  On second thought, it's not that special after all - she just shoved God out of the picture to make room for her pet issues.  Typical.

I could spend a long time pulling apart her argument, especially her criticism that, because people will do it anyway, we should just concede that abortions are ok.  That's very much like saying ,well, people will murder anyway, so we might as well make them legal, since it's not going to stop anything anyway.  She cites some horrific case of a mother of three who was imprisoned for getting an abortion in some other country, and her three children were of course left completely helpless as she languished in jail. Depressing, certainly, and by no means is that the best way to go about punishing a woman for her bad decision - but does that mean that she is not in the wrong for choosing to end the child's life rather than seeking help?  One of the girls who went on the Arizona mission trip with me shared her story - she was adopted, and her birth mother had had several abortions before becoming pregnant with my friend.  She didn't say why her mother chose not to abort her, either, but she stated very clearly that she recognizes how easily she might have been aborted, too.  No wonder she is against abortion.

 But I digress.  Regardless of whether or not I agree with a single word the Ruether says, what on earth is this article doing in my course reserves?  Granted, it's not required reading - at least, not that I have seen so far.  But, despite the fact that Ruether is a well-known feminist theologian, whose arguments I have encountered and refuted before, this article mentions nothing that is even vaguely related to goddesses OR religion.  So, what is it doing on a list of  offered readings for a goddess religions class?  I'm no rocket scientist, but even I can clearly see that this article is way out of line.  There is no reason whatsoever for her to post this other than to foist her own political beliefs onto us, her unwitting students.  Never mind that most of the people in my class probably agree with the article.  Never mind that it isn't required reading.  This is WAY outside the scope of the class and has absolutely NO reason to be on that list.  This sort of thing makes me absolutely livid.  It's exactly what Indoctrinate-U is all about.

If I was not so close to graduation that I am scared of saying anything that would potentially jeopardize my  chances of being done (I do need this class to graduate, sadly),  I would try to do something about this.  As it is, while I was already planning to give a scathing review on the course evaluations at the end of the semester, I now must remember to include this, as well.  Perhaps I will included something to the effect of, 'Dr. Mitchell, I suggest you listen to the Right Brothers' song entitled "SHUT UP AND TEACH."'

It's almost too bad that I already have a calling.  Otherwise, I might consider contacting Evan Maloney and seeing if he needed any help fighting the liberal indoctrination going on in our universities, because this is just plain wrong, folks.  And it needs to stop.

-Jaya-

I'll get to some substance later.  Right now, I need some haiku-style complaining about Goddess Religions.  We're a little bit behind in class, but the reading for today was about God and Genesis.  The "tribal Yahweh," as Mitchell calls it. 

The attacks are back
God is not respected here
they cut Him to bits.

Why is it so cool
to try to make God look like
a complete moron?

Or make Him a mean,
evil, corrupt, and worthless
patriarchal jerk?

That is not my God!
My Father is kind, loving,
majestic and good.

He is a savior,
extending His love to all,
who are unworthy.

He is vengeful, yes,
He has every right when His
perfection is wronged.

But we deserve more
than even the wrath we get;
His love protects us.

Just because His Book
reflects the myths of the
goddesses of old...

...this does not mean that
they are not true - they are
Truths behind the myths.

They can't both be true
but that doesn't mean that both
must be wholly false.

There is nothing that
frustrates me more than seeing
these dumb arguments.

In case you can't tell, I found the reading for this week very frustrating.  It was all about how this stupid Hebrew god shows up and ousts all the goddesses, eradicating so much of the rich beauty of the previous religions and replacing it with the stark, ugly evil of Patriarchy.  With a capital P.

Grr. 

I really struggle with this crap.  It gets to me on more than an intellectual level, and frustrates me to no end.  Thank God that the moment I step outside, I can take a deep breath, revel in God's creation, and know that He is God, no matter what these stupid books tell me.  Sometimes, I have to cling to a truth as though it was nothing more than dogma, not because it is but because that's the only way I can deal with it without losing my head.  Only later, after the fact, can I look at the arguments being made and refute them logically.  My first reaction is to freeze up and panic, and the only way I can save myself is to cling to what I know is true.  So that's what I'll do when I get out of class today - I'm going to cling to the Truth and I'll deal with the lies later.

-Jaya-

P.S. As a rather irrelevant side note, what on EARTH is my teacher wearing today?  That's got to be the most hideous thing I've seen in a long time.  Shiny bronze MC Hammer-esque pants with a velvet-looking shirt that hangs down low  and completely destroys any form she might have had to her body.  Ick - looks like a wannabe Aladdin or... something.  Wow.  I'm quite at a loss for words to describe it.

I have been thinking about this particular subject an awful lot lately, as it seems to be cropping up everywhere.  One of the biggest problems I see cropping up in modern Christianity is a desire to rob God of His majesty, His glory, and His dignity to make Him more "approachable."  We see this in many modern praise songs, where the swelling tones and triumphant words of the old hymns are replaced with wimpy chords and repetitive dribble.  When I was home this Easter, I got from my parents a copy of a CD set called "More than 50 Most-Loved Hymns," and have listened to it several times through while driving around. And I noticed that most of those hymns, familiar to me as they are, still managed to make my heart swell to bursting with the sense of majesty and glory they imparted.  Think of singing "All Praise to Thee" or "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" - do you know the sensation I mean?  It often comes with the last verse, when there's usually a key change, and the entire piece builds to this crescendo that just explodes with power and you're practically shouting instead of singing because it's that exhilarating. It even comes at the end of hymns like "Be Thou My Vision," whose last verse goes like this:

High King of Heaven, my victory won,
May I reach Heaven’s joys, O bright Heaven’s Sun!
Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all.

This is back before key changes had the cheesy connotation they do now, and instead denoted a climax to the piece that increased its intensity and majesty.  Oh, I wish I could play some of it for you so that you would understand what I mean!  I can only pray that you do. If you don't, spend some time on SeeqPod and see if you can find some of the music I'm talking about - usually it's accompanied by an organ or a full orchestra, though sometimes you'll get something with bagpipes that's pretty nifty.  It's rather difficult to find if you don't know the names of the hymns you want (and even then, you go through a lot of bad ones before reaching a decent rendition) - I suggest starting with something really common, or something like the Hallelujah Chorus.  This sort of music worships God in a dignified, majestic, even stately manner - yet the worship is no less fervent for that.  Contrast this with the limp vocals of "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever."  Need I say more?  God is loving, and nice, and sometimes even sovereign and powerful, but no longer does he have the dignity afforded him in the old hymns.

This trend is not limited, however, simply to music.  In books, too, I find it runs rampant.  I recently reviewed John and Stasi Eldredge's Captivating, which is a perfect example of this sort of thing.  Another is a book which I have not read myself, but judging by what people have said in reviews and synopses, it's a dreadful shambles of bad theology that aims to take from God all majesty and glory He has ever possessed.  The book is called The Shack and represents God as three people: the Father has been replaced by "Papa," an African-American woman who, when not going by gender-bending familial names, goes by "Elousia"; Jesus, a Middle-Eastern man (though, by all accounts, a rather effeminate man), and the Holy Spirit, an Asian-American woman named Sarayu.  Now, anyone with half a brain and the capacity to read can find out in about ten minutes of browsing the Bible that this is completely ridiculous.  Apart from my usual complaints about God being portrayed as a woman (although, at least the book goes so far as to admit that this world is in need of some masculine role models and God provides that), with which we won't bother just now, here again we have this problem that God has been completely stripped of all majesty, dignity and glory to provide us with someone who is a little bit more manageable.  This god is friendly, sweet, never gets mad, likes hugs, is kind of clumsy (Jesus is, anyway), and, while seems to be fun to hang out with, isn't exactly, you know, powerful or wrathful or even dignified or majestic or glorious. 

I think the reason for all this is simple: it's way easier to deal with a really cool "Papa" who's hip six ways from Sunday and never wants us to be anything other than who we are.  We don't want God to be majestic, dignified, or glorious, because that means He's better than us and that we need to treat Him with respect.  Respect, for all it's tossed around these days, isn't something we much like to give to anyone.  It's cooler to just slack off and diss everyone.  Easier, too, because no one will listen to someone they don't respect.

God, however, deserves our respect, and He's not getting it.  The symptom I've pointed out here may manifest itself in many different ways, but it points clearly to the loss of respect we have as a culture for God, and that's very frustrating to me.  I'd much rather sing praises to God that fill me with awe at his majesty of which that music is only a glimpse, and read books that challenge me to think about a Being I can never fully comprehend, than to sing songs and read books that put God in a nice little box that I can carry around in my pill case and take it out when I need a fix.

-Jaya-

One more note.  I was playing on SeeqPod and found a version of the Hallelujah Chorus by Dan Sindel which is just SWEET.  DJ will love it.  It's a little slow, and I'm not sure what it does for the dignity of God as portrayed in the original version, but it's STILL a darn sight more majestic and glorious than the "Jesus is my boyfriend" music.  ROCK ON, JESUS! ^.~  And if you're looking for a good version of the original, look for the one by Drexel Choruses.

http://www.ldolphin.org/audio/agape.mp3

I've begun to rediscover my love for C. S. Lewis.  It's funny - the last time I was at Barnes and Noble, I was thinking about getting another of his books, and Ashley told me to get something else, because I have too much Lewis already.  But I can't help it!  He and I are kindred spirits in some - many - ways.  Right down to the quote I found of him last night saying, "You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me." 

It's funny, though, because as many times as I have dreamed of having a conversation with the man, I haven't ever imagined him sounding anything like that.  Especially not that accent - there's some stupid American prejudice saying that particular accent is very hoity-toity, very stuck up and pretentious.  But I've come to enjoy it - he speaks very clearly and of course I love what he has to say.

This particular clip is about just that: love.  It's challenged me to rethink my craving for love and what I really need, as opposed to what I think I want.  I find that even Lewis is somewhat steeped in the mysticism tradition (no great surprise, considering his interests and profession), which is somewhat frustrating, but I have come to a point where I have to begin learning to look past the romantic mysticism and into the truth that might be lurking behind it.  Lewis is good practice for that, because he has a lot of excellent thoughts and expresses himself very well.  And he makes me smile.  So that's good.

One not-terribly-related side note.  I looked up my Media and Culture book on Amazon.com, to see what people had to say about it.  One review contained this sentence: "The author doesn't always keep his liberal agenda well hidden, but that is perhaps forgiveable (sic) in an age of increasingly conserative (sic) media."

Wow.  Can you say, deluded much?  Have you read the news lately?  Granted, on a college campus I'm in something of a liberal stronghold so maybe all I see is liberal media, but WOW.  I know the politics of most mainstream media, and they are not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.  Just, wow.

I repeat my emphasis of before.  Watch Indoctrinate-U.  The truth will set us free, if we can get enough people to listen to it.

-Jaya-

Some of you will remember when I first posted about John and Stasi Eldredge's book, Captivating, which spoke to my heart in such a way that I was absolutely enraptured with their ideas.

Whoops. 

As a reminder, the basic premise is that a woman has three major desires in her heart:

1. To be romanced/pursued
2. To be an essential part of a grand adventure
3. To unveil her Beauty, to be Beautiful

These three desires can be summed up in the simple Question, "Am I lovely?"  And the only answer to this question can be found in God.

So far, so good - I can definitely say that I have a desire for all three of those things, and I can see how the Question sums up at least 2 of them (though I fail to see how being part of a grand adventure has anything to do with being lovely).  And I definitely agree that the best way to answer the desires of one's heart is to look to God.

I was bored with the reading for class today, so I thought I'd skip ahead to the Sophia stuff.  And within that, I found an all-too-common assumption about the early Jewish culture.  The assumption is that Jews were patriarchal, therefore, their God reflected those patriarchal values.  It is as though the culture came first, and then God developed from that.  But if all the cultures around them were distinctly different, especially if they were matricentric as is argued in my GRs class, it makes no sense that the Jewish people would randomly develop into a patriarchal society for absolutely no reason, and then create a God from that.

What makes more sense, to me, is that the Jewish culture was and is "patriarchal" (though without the evil connotations that word has accrued in some circumstances - there is nothing wrong with competent male leadership and you can see yesterday's entry if you want more) because they were a closer reflection of how God wants his people to live.  In other words, the patriarchal values of the Jews reflected  their God.

Now, you have to be careful when speaking of this sort of thing, because patriarchy has taken on such negative connotations.  However, as I've read more, I'm beginning to understand that, in fact, masculine leadership tends to be more beneficial for everyone, including women. This is not to say that all leaders must be male.  However, good leaders will all employ tactics which are traditionally considered "masculine" (and yes, much of this comes from having read Why Men Hate Going to Church yesterday - it's on my mind), and those benefit both men and women.  People need to be challenged, especially men, and sometimes they need to be thrown to the wolves because they're ready, even if they don't think they are.  Traditionally, the masculine leaders are the ones who are willing to do this, whereas the feminine leaders are more likely to comfort and coddle. While that has its place, this constant emphasis on not hurting anyone's feelings and protecting everyone to the extent that no one can grow is hurting everyone.

Just something to think about.

-Jaya-

I have a confession to make: I hate praying with other people.

Well, that's not entirely true.  Sometimes I really love having the opportunity to pray with someone else.  But there are things about the modern idea of "prayer" that drive me ABSOLUTELY BONKERS.  Troy can attest to the fact that I am exceedingly reluctant to pray out loud in the presence of other people.  For a while, I struggled with this, especially when we first started dating, because he was always wanting to pray together, and my version of praying together was: he prays, I listen, and when he stops saying words I pray silently.  Thankfully, that has changed, but I am still uncomfortable praying in a group with other Christians.  Why?  It's not like I have a problem praying when I'm alone, at least not most of the time.  I can just pour out my thoughts in whatever jumbled manner they come to mind and talk through whatever is troubling me - it's a good conversation, except that sometimes I forget about the listening part... but while I have trouble listening, I never have trouble speaking, until you get me in a group.  Then I'm tongue-tied and silent.

It took me a long time to figure out why, and I didn't discover the reason completely by myself.  In fact, it's best articulated in a book called Why Men Hate Going to Church, which is quite possibly the last place I would have expected to find such clarity into my own feelings (more about that in a minute).  In it, at the end of Chapter 20, there is a section on Christian "prayer-speak."  This is what Murrow has to say about it:

[Some Christians] repeat God's name again and again in prayer, like a mantra.  "Lord, we just thank You, Lord, for this day, Lord, and Lord, we just ask You, Lord, to bless us, Lord."  Would you call a friend and say, "Helen, how are you, Helen?  Helen, would you like to go to lunch, Helen?  Okay, Helen, see you at noon, Helen"?  Helen would think you were nuts.

YES. Yes, yes, yes, and lest I've been unclear about this, YES.  That's exactly what bothers me about the modern version of prayer!  Rather than just saying your say and moving on, like you would in any other conversation, there's this weird need to obsessively remind everyone that you're speaking to GOD.  Because we might somehow otherwise forget... or... something.  Not only do people repeat "Lord" or "Father God" or, like one girl I knew, go for the combo shot and pray to "Lord Father God" every third word (you have NO IDEA how annoying that was after about, oh, thirty seconds), but then there's this need to repeat the word "just" prior to everything you say to God.  We "just" want to thank you for this time together.  We "just" ask you to bless our gathering.  I "just" ask that you would be with Sue as she goes through this trying time, Lord Father God.  And by the time you're done praying, you've gone through "just" thirty or forty requests!  Look, people, you don't say "just" unless you're going to get in and get out in a very short time.  If you call someone without much to say, you might tell him that "I just called to see how you're doing."  That's fine.  But no one calls and says  "I just want to thank you for what you did for me, and I just want to ask if you would do this next week, and I just wanted to say this and I just want to do this and I just want that and I just, I just, I just"!  Quit lying to God.  "Just" implies ONE OR TWO things.  And repeating it throughout a prayer, however long it might be, makes you sound like a broken record. 

Jesus gave us a model for prayer, and in it he does not repeat God's name at the end of every line, nor does he ever use that loathsome "just" word.  His prayer is simple, short, and to the point:

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.  Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for yours is the kingdom, and the glory, and the power forever.  Amen.

How many times does Jesus call on God's name?  I count a total of ONCE.  After that, he uses these nifty things called PRONOUNS, and he doesn't feel this odd urge to throw in "Lord" after every one.  If we were to pray the Lord's prayer the way most people tend to pray, it would look more like this:

Our Father God, in heaven, we just ask that your name would be made holy, Father God.  And we just ask, Father God, that your will would be done, Father God, on earth as it is in heaven, Father God.  We just ask that you give us our daily bread, Father God, and we just ask, Father God, that you would forgive us our debts, Father God, as we forgive our debtors.  And, Father God, we just ask that you would not lead us into temptation, Father God, but that you would just deliver us from evil, Father God, because yours is the kingdom, Father God, and the glory, and the power, forever, Father God.  In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

You're laughing, I know, but it's true!  I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not. That's what prayer has become!  Jesus would cry.  Okay, maybe not quite, but sheesh.  GOD KNOWS YOU'RE TALKING TO HIM.  You don't have to repeat his name every time you finish a thought. It's okay to treat him as an intelligent member of the conversation, rather than speaking to him as though he were a child with ADD whose attention needed to be constantly pulled back to what is going on.  That sort of prayer is so stylized it sounds fake, and quite honestly it makes me want to go shake whoever is praying like that until they snap out of it. 

I have no problems praying with people when I know there's no expectation on me to pray like that.  But when that's how everyone else is praying, I tend to slip into it, too, and I HATE sounding like that.  I have a deep respect for language, being an English major, and it hurts my heart to hear it mutilated like that.  Really, it's pathetic!  People who have no problems conversing in day-to-day situations suddenly become stuttering morons when it comes to speaking to God.  Why do we feel a need to treat God like he's a two-year-old with the attention span of a gnat? 

I don't think this is conscious in most people - they just pick it up from the people around them.  I don't know where it started or who started it - if I did I'd go back in time and throttle them until they started speaking like normal people (okay, not really, but it's tempting).  But it's time to stop it.  If you're one of those people who pray that way, STOP.  For heaven's sake, stop.  Become aware of what you're saying, and that you're speaking to God.  Treat him as one worthy of your respect and of a real conversation, rather than all this stylized mumbo-jumbo.  See if removing this kind of language from your prayers doesn't encourage others to jump in on group prayers where previously they were silent.

This isn't the only thing in David Murrow's book which really resonated with me.  The vision he paints for the church, one in which masculine leadership is valued and masculine needs are met sounds like a church that would meet my needs, too.  If that's what men need, count me in!  I totally agree that those sorts of things would be great for women, too.  Something I have been struggling with lately is my need for a spiritual leader, and what I need from said leader.  I know that I need to be led, because I'm burning myself out running on the way I am now, and I feel like I'm doing all the leading and never doing any following.  But what form that leadership should take, how I need to be led, is harder to figure out.  But the picture painted in the books I've read about the masculine leadership so badly needed in the church sounds like exactly what I'm missing.  I'm already something like the antithesis of a feminist: I like to be dressed up and treated like a porcelain doll, I don't particularly want a "career" and my highest aspiration is to someday be a good wife and mother.  And now we can add to that, I long for masculine leadership.  That isn't to say that I want someone to be my own personal dictator, because I do want to have some input into where my life goes and how it unfolds, all that sort of thing.  It's just that, I'd like to find someone who can ask me, "This is where I'm going with my life, and I would be honored to have you join me.  Interested?"  That sounds fantastic right now.  Maybe it's because I've been watching too much Driscoll and thinking too much about the gaping hole of uncertainty which looms in front of me, after May 17, but that would be SO nice.  Some days I feel like I'm surrounded by boys, and I need a man.  But who's up for the challenge?

-Jaya-

PS. For those interested, a more formal collection of my writing can be found at  www.vow.org - look for articles written by Brittany Dowdy.

Our next post in the series against IDHEFTBAA (which is an incredibly annoying acronym to type out, but at least it's shorter than the title of the book) can be found here, and it takes a step back into the foreword of the book, written by David Limbaugh.  In it, Limbaugh speaks out against the hypocrisy of the "tolerance" preached by the left, claiming that it is not, in fact, tolerant at all, but often downright hostile toward Christians.  And, this time, our Professor actually has a very good point.  If Christians are going to claim tolerance for their views, they're going to have to tolerate other people's views as well.  In other words, if we demand tolerance for ourselves, we must be prepared to tolerate other views that conflict with ours.  Both Limbaugh and the Professor agree that tolerance does not necessarily mean accepting other beliefs, but allowing others to believe them without fear of harm as a result of that

Yet the Professor misses the point of LImbaugh's argument.   The point, which is clear to any Christian reading it, is that Christians are not always welcome, and their beliefs are not always tolerated.  While lip service may be given to the idea of tolerance when speaking of Christian views, because Christians are called to spread the Gospel and preach the Truth and therefore cannot simply "live and let live," often our views are not tolerated.  Ask any Christian you meet, and they will tell you that there have been times when, realizing that the Truth would not be tolerated, have kept silent when we should have spoken.  It's a common failing - and while the early Christians were willing to be ridiculed and even killed for these beliefs, we in America have become so complacent, so isolated from the war which Christianity is fighting against Satan, that we are not willing to suffer a little bit of humiliation because of our beliefs.  I'm as guilty as anyone else.  As vocal as I am here, in the safety and distance of the internet, I'm a wimp in real life.  If someone confronts me on my beliefs, I tend to back off and be submissive, not wanting to start a confrontation.  It's one of my biggest failings, and as much as it bothers me, as much as I struggle with it, I can't seem to do anything to change it.  I know that's something I need to work on.  But part of the outrage that we feel at being labeled "intolerant" is because, in the act of labeling someone thus (in the context of the connotation that word has taken on in our modern culture) is rather intolerant, and hypocrisy bothers us just as much as it does anyone else (unfortunately, it also infects us just as much as it does anyone else, but that's another story altogether). 

Actually, though, Christians are intolerant, when you think about it.  There are some things which should not be tolerated, and those are the things that are sinful.  Murder is one of them, and one on which everyone agrees (until you get so far back into the life of a person that he's not born yet - then for some reason people get this "out of sight, out of mind" mentality and assume it's suddenly ok to kill him... but again, that's another argument for another day).  And then there are things like homosexuality, which, according to the Christian world view, is sinful, and therefore should not be tolerated.  So of course we are against tolerating homosexual marriage.  It's sinful, and sin is not to be tolerated.  The problem I have with tolerance is not so much that Christians are not tolerated (that's to be expected) but that people actually think that tolerance is a viable way to run a society.

Think about it.  There are some things that are simply intolerable.  Murder, rape, theft, and arson are among them.  Society is worse off if those things are tolerated, and not even the tolerance advocates would disagree with that.  And yet, if you subscribe to the theory that individual preferences should be tolerated, who is to say that those things are exempt?  That's a very arbitrary distinction that you seem to be making on personal preference, and arbitrariness is not a good base on which to build society.  In fact, tolerance is something of a cop-out.  Rather than undertake the difficult process of discussing alternatives and deciding what is tolerable and what is not, or what a society can permit and what it cannot, people would rather take the lazy way out and "tolerate" all sorts of conflicting opinions.  It's an excuse to be lazy, quite simply - a way to escape thinking about difficult subjects, instead of tackling them.

So, I suppose my objection is to both the Professor and to Limbaugh - both are operating on the assumption that tolerance could somehow work as a viable means of running a society.  And, in the long run, it simply can't.

-Jaya-