Why Not To Teach Women Logic

So for all my English major friends, I've dug a favorite childhood story of mine. I think my 5th grade teacher introduced me to it, although I could be mistaken. But since I recall it being read aloud, 5th grade is a good guess. I hope you all appreciate the many levels of irony as much as I do. And the fallacies.

Without further ado, may I present Love Is A Fallacy

The Great Man Theory

A long long time ago, in a college far, far away, I took a history course. One question we talked about: How do we view history?

The Great Man Theory of History says that great individuals are the movers of history. This perspective looks at the people, and the influence they had - Julius Caesar, George Washington, Darwin, and such.

An alternative perspective is the event-driven history, which looks at the interactions between events in history. For example, how the Boston Tea Party, the Declaration of Indepedence, and the Revolutionary War interact.

A third take on history is idea-driven history. For example, the impact of Darwinism upon 19th century America, and how evolutionary survival ideas tended to be implemented socially. The focus is not on the person, but on the development and interaction of ideas, and the resulting impact.

In many ways, the Bible is written from a Great Man (& Woman) Theory perspective. While there are hints of event theory (the fall, the flood), much of it revolves around individuals and their lives. Adam. Eve. Moses. Hannah. Jesus. Mary (all of them).

(And for the curious, no, I didn't name the Great Man Theory. And no, I don't care to sidetrack into Bible gender-war discussions.)

I finished reading The Rise Of Lord Vader (very disappointing, by the way) tonight, and was reflecting about the heroes of our legends. Spider Man. Superman. Luke Skywalker.

It occurs to me that many of heroes come to power at a young age (teens, twenties), and are nationally, globally, or galactically known. They - or at least their alter ego - are the phenomena.

In contrast, most of the movers and shakers in the Bible spend much of their time in obscurity or controversy. Often they aren't considered great in their time, or not within a significant group. Moses, who spent forty years as a shepherd and was eighty when God called him. Jesus, who spent thirty years before having a brief three-year stint of greatness in the obscure province of Judea before dying. Star pupil Paul who spent fourteen years in Arabia before beginning a controversial and pain-filled ministry.

In short, most of our heroes spend very little time hassling with the mundane, other than as a footnote to maintain their secret identity. Many of the Biblical characters spend most of their lives dealing with the mundane: A primary theme is God using the ordinary faithful in a special way at a particular time.

It is encouraging to me that if I'm not wielding lightsabers and rescuing damsels by the age of twenty, God still might find a significant use for me.

Fighting Fire With Fire

Today I let my obsessive compulsive impulses get the better of my pack rat impulses and cleaned my room. (For the record, I decided that I definitely like cleaning better by myself. I'm not quite sure why.)

I realized that my pack rat tendencies are a rare (for me) expression sentimentality. Partly it is pure frugalness at it's worst. (I really need to hold onto this fifty-cent watergun for five years in case I need to squirt someone with it.) But partly I'm a packrat because I like holding onto mostly irrelevant memories, or thinking that someday I will go back and be inspired by this or that cool nic nak that I kept. Realistically, when I actually need inspiration, I won't be able to find the stuff I want because I don't actually take the time to organize it. And Google probably won't have invented a search engine for garages.

I also wonder if part of me is a bit afraid of forgetting stuff about my life. Stuff that ought to be important. I found the business card today for one of my first jobs during high school. Kind of cool. But pretty meaningless if I forget it. I think I finally tossed the card. It only took me ten years. Or maybe I just tucked away somewhere else.

Partly I want my memory to be right. I don't like the aspect that my memory isn't like a computer. (And while I'm thinking of it, this article on memory is quite interesting.)

I have another thought though. Today I did something good (cleaned the apartment) by letting one bad tendency - being obsessive - beat up another bad tendency - the pack rat. And the results look good. The apartment is cleaner. I have less junk. Some stuff may get donated to charity. The method works.

My sneaking suspicion is I often substitute being good with manipulating conflicting evil tendencies to imitate good. It is just a little diabolical how easy the substitution is, and how good the imitation can be.

War and Peace (Merry Christmas)

to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children

In the spirit of Christmas, I've been thinking about the that quote. It is actually a fragment of a prophecy about John the Baptist's ministry which the angel quotes to John's father. The angel's full quote is:

Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Turning people's hearts. It is such a different mindset from politics. The goal of politics is winning. Getting my policies passed. Humiliating my opponents. Being popular. Convincing the independents to support me. But rarely do I believe that the Republican establishment regrets that it doesn't agree with the Democrats - that the Republicans hold to their principles sorrowfully, and wish, desperately wish, that they could work in close agreement with the Democrats. Yes, they grudging allow Democrats who recant their views to join the flock, but there's a smidgen too much glee, that the Republicans have been found right, that a stupid idiot has finally found the right way. (To my liberal friends, don't worry - I think the Democratic establishment is about the same.)

Turning people's hearts. It is such a different mindset from terrorism. Terrorism seeks to force action by making life miserable. But terrorists (as far as I can tell), don't dream about sitting down one day with their targets and enjoying a hot cup of coffee. "Sorry about that bomb at the mall. Let me tell you, that was a tricky one to make. How's Charlie recovering?" (I'm not even going to touch America's response to terrorism - far too complicated of a topic.)

When we desire to be reconciled with people, when we desire to be their allies, when we wish we could be on the same side, we behave differently than politicians or terrorists. (Okay, that is a scary and not exactly intended parallel.)

Christmas is fundamentally about reconciliation, first of us with God, then with each other; about making them children of God, about making his children each other's friends and allies. It is about God changing our hearts toward him, and fathers changing their heart toward their children (e.g. healing this).

I like Jesus' explanation of what he is about when he answers Paul's question "Who are you, Lord?"

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," the Lord replied. "Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me."

Now everyone can be thrilled that I've posted something trivial and meaningless about the warm fuzzy spirit of Christmas, the evils of American consumerism, and the necessity of keeping it a Christian holiday.

Merry Christmas.

Preaching To The Opposition

It is harder to effectively preach to the opposition than to the choir. A friend of mine recently shared how a respected man in her life abused her. I wish she was in a tiny minority, but of my closer women friends, a shockingly high percentage have been sexually or significantly emotionally/physically abused. I don't think I've quite reached 50% yet, but I'm probably well over 25% with my 1.314159s estimate. The sad reality is that men are generally responsible.

How does one portray male headship in marriage in this context? I don't mean rationally and intellectually defend it. But how does one advocate male headship without advocating the power structure that seems to lend itself to such abuse?

Most of us - the mentally insane excluded - have a knee-jerk defensive reaction against putting ourselves in harm's way. And most of us are probably smart enough to have a few thoughts like:
- Power increases the opportunities for abuse
- He-said-she-said claims are really, really messy for victims. Evil doers often look really good to the community at large (churches included).

Lately I've also been reflecting on a couple Old Testament marriage laws.

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

The 2nd passage is of interest to me because it is effectively commands limited polygamy - and rather seriously enforced. Yet Paul later writes that pastors are not to be men of more than one wife.

In short, there seem to be aspect; of Old Testament marriage law where because of sin, God allows/commands situations that don't seem to fit his original design in order to protect women.

I don't really have any good solutions to the problem. Well, I have good theories, but they aren't very practical. I suppose I have two thoughts:

- I wonder how much of the feminist movement is fueled by men abusing power.
- I wonder how Christians can protect and defend the weak within families with effectiveness and holiness without sacrificing the male headship view of marriage.

Flames can start now.

Life Is Short: Play Hard

Lately I've been reading a bit about U2's Bono and his push for American churches to do more about the African AIDS crisis. Don't get me wrong - I think appropriately serving the African nations is a great cause. But often I feel like Christianity is always running a "big problem of the month" cause.

Here's my current to do list:
- Love wife
- Raise children
- Teach children way of God
- Love wife like Christ
- Read bible
- Pray privately
- Pray with family
- Be involved in reaching 10/40 window with gospel
- Be involved in reaching Latin American with gospel
- Be involved in reaching inner cities with gospel
- Build community relationships
- Help homeless
- Be politically active
- Be a good representative of God at work
- Be a skilled worker
- Give charitably
- Research charities' reputation so money is responsibly used
- Make wise financial decisions
- Serve in church
- Get counsel other older Christians
- Build close friendships with Christians for fellowship, encouragement, counsel, and accountability
- Love people
- Mentor younger Christians
- Avoid "holy huddle" where I loose all contact with non-Christian world
- Live life: Shop for necessities and bargins (to be frugal with money), blog, relax, have hobbies, read theological books, read for fun, learn to salsa dance, yada yada yada.
- Be involved with extended family events
- Be a servant in my friends' crisis.
- Research life choices to live healthily and spend money wisely.
- Exercise

Anyone else overwhelmed yet?

Okay, I know that some of the above activities overlap. But lately I've been playing around with three thoughts.

First, merely because a need exists does not mean it is my responsibility to help meet that need. I can't save the world. It is okay to say "the Christian community isn't meeting this need" without my being obliged to drop what I'm doing and dash off to the new issue. I once read an article on how pastors always have someone they could be ministering to, but that a pastor must learn to let the telephone ring in order to be with their family rather than always on the job.

Secondly, God works (significantly) through community. There are people he will call and make available to commit themselves to many good causes. And I can be excited about what God is doing. Organization also makes it possible for me to be financially involved in these causes: By researching and finding a handful of organizations that I believe are trustworthy and responsible, I can be financially generous without being irresponsible about giving money to poor managers.

Third, I need to know and work within my priorities: There are relatively few specific causes that all Christians are called to be involved in. There is a clear set of principles to live by, however, and it is good for me to periodically examine if I am living those out. It is good for my friends to challenge me if I could be living them out better. But living them out better often does not mean adding more and more activity to my life. And when I look at other's lives, I need to be careful not to confuse different with better. (There are people who are better at living out the priorities than I am, and I should model them, but often I think I mistake a different calling as being a better one.)

Today's Specials

I've recently stumbled across a blog that I like. I thought I'd point out a few of the more interesting pieces.

A highly entertaining (to me) link to a link to a link about a new type of significant other: A 'friendationship'. I could just link to the original, but I like links of links of links.

Another pointed but well-taken look at how we can spin everything as God's will.

And the site of the aforementioned satire, The Holy Observer, with a couple more links to plagiarism and free will. (For those familiar with GCM, the GCM-approved dating method may be humorous. The rest of you probably won't get it.)

Also from Ochuk, this on the language of women.

Sinning Saints (Part II)

For those of you who did not read the corresponding article comments, they are thought-provoking - as much for what they do not say as much as what they do say.

What's particularly interesting about the responses is that there is very little about what Mother Teresa actually believed or wrote. Being a critic of the "I believe X about Mother Teresa's beliefs without any support, I did a little hunting. I promptly discovered why few of her beliefs were directly quoted. I was a little surprised, actually, how little a Google search on her turned up on her theologically: A plethora of classic quotes and a few critics - pretty much par for the course of a world icon. (It is, of course, far too easy to make a legend fit one's world view.)

Here's a few excepts catching my attention and my thoughts:

Yes, she met the royal law of love--love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.

Huh? I'm pretty sure Mother Teresa wouldn't claim to have met the law; I'm almost certain I've read some of her quotes to the contrary. It's a powerful claim that we can fully love God heart, mind, soul, and strength.

If she did not repent of her sins and place her faith in Jesus Christ alone for her salvation, she went to hell. If she worshipped Mary, she went to hell. It doesn't matter how many "good" things someone does, if they have sin in their life they will go to hell.

Mostly a fascinating quote because of the juxtaposition of two concepts. Concept A: If she repented and placed her faith in Jesus alone, she goes to heaven. (I think that is what the author meant. It is what I hope they meant. The strict converse of the first statement is 'If she is in heaven, then she repented of her sins and placed her faith alone in Jesus (plus possible additional conditions.)

Concept B: If a person has any sin in their life, they will go to hell. I'm not quite clear what good repentance and faith are if utter elimination of sin is necessary to avoid hell. I would guess the commenter is coming from a Wesleyan holiness perspective, but that is still a little rough for the Christian converts who haven't quite mastered not sinning.

I don't know the final answer, but if she believed Jesus was the Messiah that could save her from her sins, and if she lived her life in obedience to His teachings, then she very well may be in Heaven.

I like this quote. (Note the word 'like', which is very different than 'agree'.) It begs the question: Is obedience necessary for salvation? If so, how much?

Is there a point at which we can look at someone's life and say "They have lived such a good life that they must have been a Christ follower?" What happens if that person openly claims to be a Muslim, or an atheist? Is our belief system invalidated if the next Mother Teresa figure is a Hindu?

I'm very uncomfortable with the premise in many of the comments that if one lives a good enough life, one 'must' be a Christian. It sounds good - we want to think that Christians can live a notch 'better' than non-Christians. But I'm not clear it is theologically sound. I'm not sure I'm prepared to qualify certain people as Christians if they live a good enough life. I'm not sure I'm prepared to disqualify people for living too bad a life. And I'm very fuzzy on where I'd start drawing lines.

Here's a parting thought: It is perhaps unfortunate that Mother Teresa didn't leave behind a clearer theological picture for us to attach to her deeds - or at least, that I'm not aware of it. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, at least in America, seems varied. Good deeds say a great deal, but there are some ideas they simply cannot communicate.

(And the corollary is that I need to blog less and do more.)

Of Saintly Sinners

I stumbled across this article by a writer I very much like. And since I generally agree with him that it is how we apply our theology to the "real-world," I liked the questions he asked. Feel free to leave your own thoughts. I'll try and post a few of my thoughts later.

"What Do You Think of Me?" And Other Taboos

I know I've been really bad about posting recently. I'd like to blame it on actually having a life, but that might be stretching matters a bit. I have bought a new computer game (galactic conquest simulation) to bury myself in, however.

I've also had trouble finding the proper way to structure my thoughts. I almost titled this post 'Women should be seen and not heard' and Other Taboo Opinions but decided it might be taken the wrong way. (Okay, it still might be taken the wrong way, but at least readers are in the middle of the post by now.)

Reading newspaper stories about people who have died always interests me; especially those who die young. People are so predictable in their quotes: How sad it is Johnny died so young; how tragic it is that Johnny didn't live out his full potential; how Johnny was cared for people, had a great heart, and really worked to make the world a better place.

Strangely enough, the people who make this world a rotten place never seem to die young.

Johnny was struck by car today as he left the high school to hang out with his friends. His friends, though shocked, are relieved. 'Johnny was hard to be around.' said one his former girlfriend. 'He'd slap me if I disagreed with him, and he always thought I looked fat. I didn't have the guts to breakup with him, but I'm not really sorry he's gone.' His parents were less diplomatic 'Johnny was a troublemaker; always giving us grief. We loved him, but maybe the world is better off without him. It's scary imagining him as a father with his lack of empathy and short fuse.' Sally, part of a Johnny's cliche...

They just don't write obituaries like that. I've been thinking recently about hot potato subjects, and even how different sets of my friends have different topics.

Here's a scattering of some examples and specific thoughts I've been wrestling with.
- "Hi, I'm a radical Islamic terrorist sympathizer": Topics where there's a strong cultural judgment easily become taboo. Most of us don't like taking a position we know is strongly condemned by our friends or family. A bit more on the church and taboos in a moment, but religious moral codes tend to make it very easy to create taboo topics.

- Sex: Taboo topics are really dangerous for the church, especially when the topic is not culturally taboo. It is very hard to effectively shape beliefs and perspectives in a specific manner without open and frank discussion. Shaping viewpoints is even harder when a different perspective is openly discussed. The culture is very good at articulating it's perspective, which paraphrased is something like "Sex feels good. Ergo only an evil and retarded religion (or God) would want to prevent sex prior to marriage. Do whatever feels good." When the church is not guiding itself in how to handle feelings and experiences from every aspect of life, it is vulnerable to being guided by the culture.

- So how does your boyfriend (husband) really treat you?: Certain problems (like abuse) tend to feel like they reflect strongly on the victim. I married the jerk who abuses me: What does this say about me? And it's hard to casually bring up the topic. Plus there's often this horrified reaction of "How could you possibly imagine that my dear beloved Xavier possibly abuses me? How in the world could you have such a low opinion of him?" So we have a strong denial mechanism coupled with a taboo topic that tends to reflect badly on the questioner for raising the question.

- What do you really think of me?: It occurs to me that the essence of many taboo topics is that they ask or reveal more about others than they want to share. There's an implicit tragedy when a guy falls for a girl, but she does not return his feelings. Or when a friend considers another a close friend, but not vice-versa. And most of us are smart enough to realize that others don't want total honesty either.

I have a bad knack for picking the wrong level of honesty in my answers. A while ago I was talking theology with a friend (Albert) and was answering a question which had implications for Albert's close friends, and thus for Albert. Albert didn't like my answer and (with atypical honesty) responded "You're silly." I didn't like the response. It stung. I like being affirmed. But I think that exchange is a more honest reflection of how we often react to others. It's just that we usually lie easily about it instead of saying "I think you're silly". We're more passionate about taboo topics which removes the cordial veneer, and since we like the illusion, we avoid deeps topics.

So my solution I need get better about the living following: I think you are (or may be) badly wrong, but I will at least hear you out and attempt to understand you (prior to jumping down your throat) before reaching any definitive conclusions about what a depraved child of utter darkness you may be. Even if you should be a depraved child of utter darkness (or behave as such from time to time), I will love, accept, and respect you because you are made in the image of God*.

* - this means neither that there may not be consequences to our relationship because of your actions, nor that I will live this goal out perfectly. However, even in consequences, I want to make it clear that I think you are worthy of respect and concern.

Hrm, how should I modified this wording?