Book Opinions

Okay, I need people's opinion on a couple of books.

First, in our young marrieds group, we started reading the book Love and Respect by Emerson Eggerichs (how do you pronounce that??). It sounds like a good enough book, it definitely sparked a good discussion in our group on Sunday, but something was always nagging at me. For one, it's printed by Focus on the Family-- and I'm more apt to disagree with a majority of the things they teach, but I let that slide. I also know nothing of the author and his views of life and marriage, and couldn't find anything online about it, but I still wasn't convinced. I was on guard, but nothing I was seeing or hearing was showing me that I would not enjoy and (especially) agree with the book. But then lo and behold, I was reading through my google reader and came upon a blog by Complegalitarian that stated this about the book:

I also encourage you to read Love and Respect because it is the complementarian book that has the most thorough discussion of domain-based authority. In fact, it is this discussion that convicted me. For example, Emerson points out that men and women tend to view careers very differently. Women typically view work outside the home as a choice, while men view it as a fundamental responsibility. (This thinking came through on Complegalitarian blog a couple of weeks ago, in Wayne's "what is a Christian feminist" post. Women wanted the right to choose whether they worked and the right to choose the military. Yet, none of them expressed a willingness to assume primary responsibility for supporting a family or defending their country.) Male authority in marriage follows logically from this responsibility to protect and provide. Of all the complementarian books that have attempted to answer the “why does God command me to submit to my husband when I know we’re equals” question, it is Emerson’s discussion of responsibility and authority that I found to be compelling.

I have to admit, that scares me a bit. I worry when someone is "convinced" about traditional ideas. I understand that people want to learn more about it, and it is a bit unfair of me because I try to "convince" others about egalitarianism. And the idea of "domain-based authority" just makes my skin crawl. But what the bigger issue is, is that I haven't read the book, nor have I bought it yet, but I don't want to buy a book that I am going to spend my time yelling at and wanting to throw across the room because of the things I disagree with (I've done that with "women's Bible study" books).
However, I can also see that the author may talk about more traditional ways of conducting marriage, but it's not the focus of the book... I just don't know what to think about it. Because I also resist strongly (and usually gets me into trouble) when people try to put me (and especially me as a woman) into a box and call it "all women." (And "all men" for that matter. Michael rarely fits into the "Christian man" box.)
Anyway, all that to say, I'm worried that this book will cause me and Michael to implode and have to be the "weirdos" because we don't agree with it. But if it's a subtle message, I think I might be able to handle it if the overall message is okay.... but is it? Please, anyone who's read it, tell me what it's like before I go out and buy it (and possibly end up burning it).

There is another opinion I need. My sister-in-law mentioned to me that she wants a good book on faith, spirituality, and dealing with life. I'm coming up short (ha-ha everyone laugh... cuz I'm short...) with ideas and I don't know what book to get her. She's not a big reader, so she doesn't need anything too theological or anything like that. She just needs something simple, encouraging, and educational. Any suggestions? Any books you have liked in the past (or present) that she might find something in? Please give me all the suggestions you can!

Thanks for everyone's help!

The Five Country Plan

I've never mentioned on here my views and hopes for children, so I thought I'd enlighten you (and be able to process this whole thing a little bit). Michael and I have been married for 5 months and we are nowhere near wanting to have children. We do joke around that when his sister, April, has her baby (it could be any day now...), Izzy (the baby--her name is going to be Elizabeth) will be our guinea-pig in dealing with a child. I've done nannying but it is nowhere near the same thing as having your own, and I have a feeling that Izzy will be the same way. We wont have to get up with her every 3 hours, and can give her back to April when she's fussy. But we'll see... because currently, the thought of having a child makes my heart race-- a sure sign I'm not emotionally ready to have a child.
On a recent blog post I read, it introduced me to the idea of leading a quiverful lifestyle in regards to childbearing. I'd never heard of it, having been raised in a pretty relaxed and non-traditional household. People who adhere to the quiverful ideas say that any sort of prevention of having a child (including abstaining from sex during ovulation [aka natural family planning]) is a sin; that God creates life and we should not stand in the way of God's life-giving powers... if you know me at all, you can safely guess that I don't think that is legit.
But I must admit, it did get me thinking. The blog I read linked to another blog that started the whole discussion. The idea that I took out of it was the idea that married couples don't tend to consult God in their reproductive decisions. Michael and I had never discussed what we thought God thought about us having children. So from that blog, Michael and I got into a pretty interesting discussion about what we thought God would want from us, if using contraception really was a sin (we don't think it is), and, like the original author of the blog was discussing, we had a discussion surrounding the idea of God and contraception.
But even though we don't think that we are sinning or preventing God from creating life (which he could do even with using birth control), we know that we are not anywhere near ready to have responsibility for a child's life. We barely make enough money as it is, and we're only in our early 20s for crying out loud! We could wait 10 years and still have plenty of time to have more than one kid!
Another aspect to our decision is that we want to experience life first. We want to travel, we want to live a life that is not dictated or restrained by having a child. Yes, I understand that children are a blessing, but where we are in life right now, we don't see it that way. If we ended up getting pregnant, we would embrace it and love that child more than we could imagine, but if we can prevent it and lead our life sans children for a while, we would like to do that.
But the question arises: is that selfish? Is that too self-centered? Is it okay to be all about us? What if we're not meant to even have children? (Even my sister pointed out "you don't even like kids"... I'm sure it'd be different if they were mine, but what if that's true? What if I wouldn't like my future children?) Is it socially (especially in the church) acceptable to choose to not have children?
We've decided on a 5-country plan for deciding when to have kids: we want to travel to 5 different countries before we have any kids (we know that is completely unrealistic, so it's actually "after Michael is done with school [in 2 years] we'll reassess the situation" plan)... but we can dream!
How do people decide when to have kids? When it's an unplanned thing, you obviously have no choice, but if you get married, how have other people made that decision? Do you just get the "baby bug" and that's when you start trying? There are just so many questions surrounding this seemingly small subject... I'll be wrestling with this one for a while.
Oh, and if we're lucky to make it to one country, we'll be happy :-)

Love and Chocolate

"Once upon a time, there was a quiet little village in the French countryside, whose people believed in Tranquilité - Tranquility. If you lived in this village, you understood what was expected of you. You knew your place in the scheme of things. And if you happened to forget, someone would help remind you. In this village, if you saw something you weren't supposed to see, you learned to look the other way. If perchance your hopes had been disappointed, you learned never to ask for more. So through good times and bad, famine and feast, the villagers held fast to their traditions. Until, one winter day, a sly wind blew in from the North..."

This is the opening monologue in the movie, "Chocolat." I was watching it a few nights ago with two of my girl friends (Johnny Depp + chocolate = great girl's night!) and as much as I adore the movie, I was struck by the deep theological ideas/symbolism that the movie portrayed. When not drooling over Johnny Depp, I actually was amazed by the great picture of the church that the movie symbolized.
The movie is about a woman, Vianne-- unmarried with a daughter, neither one attends church-- who open a chocolate shop in a very quiet, traditional French town. This woman wears brightly colored dresses and shoes and befriends the people of the town (and visitors) who the town ignores or even "boycotts." Try as the mayor and the priest may, they cannot dissuade people from going to the chocolate shop.
Because the priest and the mayor do not agree with what Vianne does, they use the pulpit to convince the people that the chocolate that she sells and the friendship that she offers is evil and essentially like befriending the devil. The mayor goes around the town gossiping about Vianne and putting a negative light on everything about her, considering her and her chocolate "shameless" and "the enemy."
One day, a group of "pirates" (well, they're actually "river rats"-- as if that's any better) come to the village. They are seen as untouchables. However, as the town posts signs stating "boycott immorality," Vianne welcomes them to her shop with open arms, and a chocolate treat. Almost everyone in the town looks down on her actions, but the river rats all appreciate her hospitality. They even allow her to host a party on her boat. I must say, she and the guests of the party all looked like they were having a heck of a lot more fun than the people of the village...

In the end, everyone--including the hard-ass mayor-- come to realize the power of her unconditional and nonjudgmental love and friendship. (Sorry if I spoiled the movie... it's been out for 7 years, so I don't feel bad!)

So... that was a nice story... why write about it you ask. Well, I looked at it though the church's eye. Go back and read it again if you need to with this in mind: think of the town as the traditional church; Vianne as churches (and people) that are doing things a "bit differently" that the traditional church gasps at; the river rats as those that the traditional church shuns and puts down: homosexuals, the homeless, "sinners", etc. ... Read it again... It all comes together, doesn't it?!

God calls us all to be like Vianne. We need to stand strong in our own beliefs and love everyone, despite what others may think of them or what the "church" teaches about them. We need to stand out with our nonjudgmenal love and grace for people. We need to look beyond what "the church" teaches us to believe about them. There is truly nothing wrong with chocolate, and yet the mayor and the priest were able to convince the people of the town that it was evil. We need to think for ourselves and question what we are taught, especially to see if there is some kind of agenda behind it. We need to stand strong! We need to accept and even risk making enemies with others. Who knew that giving love to people could make others so mad? Mix things up a bit and bring light into dark places, places that have forgotten how to laugh, cry, and be joyful. Finally, give out chocolate-- you never know whose life you're going to change!

Is it Possible to be Biblical but not Christian?

I’m officially a theologian! I tend to be the one who goes to others who are older and wiser than I am for advice and insight about different issues, topics, discussions, etc. However, I was the one who was come to! I felt so honored J So instead of running instantly to my friend who lives down the street to give me the “right” answer, I jumped in head first by myself… I am growing up! ;-) But I would still love anyone and everyone’s thoughts and insight!

So here's the scoop: I joined a group on Facebook called “The Economics of Jesus.” (If you’re on Facebook, definitely check it out!) Well, I didn’t think much about joining the group because my beliefs fell within what the group talked about. A friend of mine emailed me a few days ago asking about the group. (Without hesitation, I can say she is much more conservative than I am.) Well, here is the question and following it is my response to her:

i was checking out the group and something about it confused me. how can something be biblical, but not christian? if the bible is the inspired word of GOD, how can people meant to be CHRIST followers dismiss parts of his very word? i.e. giving a portion of your income to the church? maybe you've given this some thought and can explain how something can be biblical, but not chrisitan.

From my understanding, a lot of it comes down to one’s understanding of the definition of the word “church.” It has become a new teaching in some churches that the church is not just the building with four walls—but the people and businessesàthe community around the building of the church. The church becomes the people you encounter at the coffee shop, your fellow students in your classes, the poets, the mothers and fathers, the homeless, the poor, the single mother working 3 jobs, etc. The church is not defined by the four walls, and shouldn’t be. God says that He is the head of the church—he did not necessarily mean that he is the head of the building (just one step above the pastor).

The church dynamic is very different than what it originally was in Biblical times. Paul was the one who coined the word “Christian;” Jesus never used it or even alluded to it. He told people to follow the calling that God put in their lives and to have fellowship with one another. There of course were the teachers—because believe me, I could not function completely on my own when it comes to the Bible without good teachers—but they give insight and teach to their greatest understanding of what God wants them to teach. You don’t have to look far for the corruption of the church and the mistakes that are made within the church’s understanding of Biblical passages and laws (of the Old Testament).

Saying something is Biblical and not Christian is an interesting idea, even for me. After giving this a lot of thought, my main conclusion is that when the group talked about the tithe as Biblical and not Christian is that the Old Testament is no longer followed as law in the Christian church. Because Christians don’t follow the Old Testament law, even though it is in the Bible, the idea of tithing is not “Christian.” Tithing is also defined as giving a certain portion of (all of) your income and possessions to God. Today, churches use the words "tithing" and "giving" interchangeably, even though they are completely different concepts. I believe that the creator of the group meant to get rid of the use of the word "tithing" as an obligation instead of a personal calling.

There are ideas that Christians have put into their interpretations of the Bible—therefore, making an idea “Christian” but not necessarily Biblical. God intended a lot of things that may not be lived out in the modern church. Specifically, you asked about giving to the church. The idea of giving to the church is a modern idea. In the Bible, God calls His followers to give to the poor, the hungry, and the needy. In Matthew 19:21, Jesus told the rich man to “sell your possessions and give to the poor…” Giving to the poor is not code for “give to the church.” Jesus cared about the poor and the outcasts, and he calls his followers to do the same. Any mention of tithing is mentioned in the Old Testament. It was in Leviticus and Numbers, but in both of those passages, they talked about tithing your possessions (and everything else… See Lev. 27:30) and giving them to God. It does not say the church, because there was no such thing as the church back then. God called His people to tithe to Him, sacrificing yourself and your possessions for God.

In regards to the fact that the commands about tithing are all in the Old Testament, one must not ignore that. When Jesus came, he got rid of the old covenant. In Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, and Hebrews 9:25 and 12:24, they all talk about Jesus being the new covenant. We are no longer under the old law. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t give to the church or the poor or whomever else God calls you to give to. I am saying that we are no longer required to. Our relationship with God became very personal when Jesus came and died for us. We no longer had to do anything, but could choose and listen to see where God was taking us and directing us individually instead of as an entire community. By saying that Jesus is the new covenant (and not following the old covenant and laws) is not dismissing the Bible. It is the history and there are many things to be learned through the Old Testament laws, but they do not direct our life any more. If God did not want us to learn something from the Old Testament, it wouldn’t be in the Bible. But it shouldn’t be taken as laws, and should definitely not be used to pick and choose which laws we should still be following. It’s an all or nothing kind of thing. God called His people to tithe—no longer a law, but a choice and a calling. Personally, I have rarely tithed to a church. I use it to give where I hear God calling me to give—World Vision, Unitus, lunch with a friend who is short on cash, coffee for the stranger behind me in line, etc. That is God’s church, not necessarily the building.

The Bible does talk about giving to support pastors (or leaders, I’m not really sure where that passage is…) so if that is what God has called you to do, that’s awesome! There is nothing wrong or unbiblical about that. Do what God has called you to do. A lot of pastors are solely supported financially by the giving of the church members, so I am not disregarding the need for giving to the church. However, one cannot discount that other’s calling may be to give to the poor (and not the church as a building). Both are Biblical. Although, one is not always considered “Christian” because most churches teach that the only way to give is to give to the church. It all comes down to interpretation and personal conviction and calling on your life.

Revolution is not just a word

So I wrote a blog about the movie, "Amazing Grace," and I included some quotes that I really liked. There was one quote, however, that I felt needed it's own blog. Towards the end of the movie, when William and his accomplices have run out of ideas of how to get people's attention about the issue of slavery, and especially how to get the bill voted in, William's friend, Pitt, suggests a revolution. During the time of William's life, a revolution meant what the French Revolution turned out to be-- a bloodbath, full of murder and hatred. William tells him that he refuses to lead a revolution and tells Pitt to never say "revolution" in his presence again. Pitt responds, "revolution is just a word." Well his response is what got me thinking...

Is revolution really just a word? I would consider myself part of a revolution, and it has taken some action to be a revolution. Action is what makes it a revolution. Going against the norm, questioning tradition, doing things never done before, and especially having ideas that people are not comfortable with. It's doing those things, saying those words, that makes someone's actions a revolution. It does no good to sit around and talk about being revolutionary or having a revolution... I guess that would be the only way that "revolution" could be considered just a word, but how fun is that?

A revolution always involves action, even if the action is just talking. Slave trade was abolished in England because of words in the house, as well as action taken on their part to research and plan; the civil rights movement was led by people marching, taking a stand, and talking (aka "I have a dream!"); and India gained independence through someone not eating and peacefully defying the government. All of those men used action. The action does not have to be bloody or involve a war with guns and violence. The most meaningful and powerful revolutions took place with people taking small steps and small actions to create the result they wanted. William Wilberforce did not have to fire a single gun to have his cause heard. It took a lot of time (around 40ish years) but it was through that perseverance and his dedication to his calling that got the monumental results he desired. Firing a gun, or telling other people to do so, does not require as much passion or perseverance as fighting for what you believe with words and nonviolent actions. William changed the world, and not a single shot was fired or head was chopped off.

So is revolution just a word? I don't see how it possibly could be! Take the examples of the great men who changed the world with their words and their nonviolent actions. They used what they knew and encouraged people to join with them to change the world! Just try to imagine the possibilities... the list is endless! VIVA LA!

Touching Untouchables with Bare Hands

I was watching the movie, "The Motorcycle Diaries" the other day about two men, Ernesto Guevara (a med student studying about treating leprosy) and Alberto Granado (a biochemist), who take a road trip around South America-- which made me want to jump online and buy a plane ticket to Argentina! During their journey, they stop by a leper colony to volunteer for a few weeks. On their way to the colony, the head doctor is telling them about the people there and the work they will be doing. The doctor explains to them that the nuns who work there have very strict rules about how things are done around the colony. He then hands them gloves to wear that the nuns require everyone to wear. However, when the doctor hands Ernesto the gloves, Ernesto asks: "Leprosy isn't contagious, right? So these gloves are purely symbolic? Then I wont need these" and he and Alberto hand the gloves back to the doctor. The men then eagerly shake hands with the lepers of the colony who are at first confused, but then embrace the men because of their love and lack of prejudices.
This act of unprejudiced love and understanding really struck me. These men were not "Christians" in the sense of it being a mission trip they were on trying to convert people. They went out to meet people and love those who needed to be loved and have the adventure of their lives.
What struck me was the "tradition" and symbolism of how Christians lead their lives. We go around preaching that we need to love people and love those who Jesus loved, especially those who the world overlooks-- the homeless, the prostitutes, the children,etc. There are those people who do love them and reach out to them, but how often do they touch them with gloved hands? We will only go close enough to help them on the surface-- feed them one meal, give them one new set of clothing-- but fail to actually touch them with our bare hands. We fail to help them and love them where they really need to be loved-- in their hearts and their spirits and show them an unconditional love that Jesus called everyone to. We only go so far to help them, because of fears, prejudices, anger, feeling uncomfortable, etc. We wear gloves to touch them and are afraid to really dig deep to show them the love they need. We need to remove the gloves and actually touch people with our bare hands. People will see that and know that you are showing them a love beyond their understanding. And by touching people with your bare hands will give them an opportunity to give something else back to you in return. If you have gloves on your hands, you cannot give everything and you definitely can't get anything in return.
This is something I am still learning to do and understand, but it is definitely something that can be done. Show people a "gloveless" love. That's what Jesus called us all to do.