The Irrational American Wedding

It's that time of life. The time of life where every other summer weekend is spent traveling to a new nuptial locale. Where you suddenly notice just how many magazines are devoted to white dresses and colored fondant. Where, "What Is Your Perfect Bouquet: Take The Quiz!" is something you try your hardest not to take seriously.

Last year I think I went to 5 weddings (including my own). I'm realizing that this is actually a moderate-to-small number; some of my friends attend as many as 10 in a year! But I could go to 100 and I doubt I would get sick of it. There is absolutely no celebration like a wedding, and the American one has its fair share of quirks.

During my engagement I found a book dedicated to exploring the American wedding industry, which (thankfully) did more to balance my perspective than anything else could. When one is in the midst of a long-term wedding operation, rationality is a difficult thing to hold onto. My fellow fiancées and I occasionally remarked on the surprising pull of the industry's message. It seems odd to think that something as eclectic as a wedding can speak with the unified voice of an "industry", but I honestly think I have never heard such a powerful (yet subtle), organized (yet unaffiliated) declaration of intent. And that intent is clear: get the bride.

Oh, but we want to be gotten! We long nearly from our cribs to be captured and seduced and finally slaughtered by that beautiful and dangerous Wedding. We are brides for Halloween and frequent playground actors. We nearly drool at our former babysitter as she glides in white down the church aisle bestrewn with flower petals. We are victims, and we never had a chance.

And finally our time comes. Beset with our diamond proof of legitimacy, we slam down every wedding magazine Border's has to offer on the cashier's counter. Finally we are in that position to be able to groan with faux exhaustion about all of the decisions we have to make in the next 9 months.

But at some point, a little bit of panic does set in. What if roses aren't exactly my flower? What do roses say about me? Will people know I'm classic and not boring? What about my dresses? Are they stylish, or tacky? Does this table setting exhibit my slight bent towards the urban exotic while paying a passing contribution to my love for early American architecture? What in the world can we have besides chicken and fish!?

I should have seen it coming, but I was honestly blindsided by the inherent and extremely strong expectation by Wedding, Inc. that this day should be the Culmination and Expression of our entire Mental and Personal Identity. Needless to say, it is difficult to express a human personality in the subtleties of red velvet versus lemon raspberry.

The author of the previously mentioned wedding book made an interesting observation on the purpose of such a message. Previously (in the 1800s or 'bout then), women spent much of their teenage years needlepointing and knitting and quilting--preparing for wedding and womanhood. The wedding display was meant to express the readiness of this woman to be a wife. Nowadays we have a similar, but more modern version of this aspiration. The vendor organization, the executive decision-making in food and in color and in dress--all of these planning skills show the worthiness of the bride to take on the modern responsibilities of the American Household. Essentially, it is a crash course on project management. And an effective one at that!

I admit I was confused and beset by by the bridal lie that my honor as a bride depended on the notoriety of my place settings. But at the end of my engagement I was happily able to enjoy my wedding without being personally limited by that single (allegedly) climactic day. Yes, I chose red roses. Yes, we had a city wedding. And no, post-wedding I have not found myself suddenly bound to and limited by my choice of favors, music or cake. Instead, I have come away with something marvelously better than anything the giant, authoritative wedding industry was able to offer--a great marriage.

What is Sin?

Until somewhat recently I never really thought about this question. Sin was stuff you did that God didn't like. The obvious answer is found in the 10 commandments, but Christians don't generally limit themselves to such a short list:). The definition is often expanded to the more inclusive "being in rebellion against God." At some point as a teenager I made an even greater shift (which seemed to be viewed by many as a step in a more righteous direction) to view sin not from the perspective of things you do that are against God, but rather, anything that you do that is not in complete alignment with God's perfect will for your life. I think I got this from "be perfect like your heavenly Father is perfect" which I admit I took somewhat out of context.

It may sound holy, but the result of such a mindset is pretty distorted. What happens is that you cease to distinguish between actual "sins" (rather, you consider most thoughts and feelings to be "sinful") and fall either into a rhythm of flippancy towards grace or a sense of total despair.

Such a definition may sound extreme, but my experience with the Evangelical church is that its teachings and actions are not far from this extreme perspective. Prayers of confession are encouraged to be given frequently--and the more frequently you confess, the fewer actual sins you can think of. But of course you know that you're probably forgetting something. After all, if we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. So, you end up confessing what you could have "done better". "I'm sorry for being angry" or "for being grumpy" or even "I'm sorry that I don't love You like I should."

Is not loving God "like I should" a sin? Well, it does break the first and greatest commandment.

So where does that leave us? Sinners, of course, saved by grace. That's an easy answer. But none of us wants to be in a state of sin. After all, we're dead to sin. How can we live in it any longer? How do we know if there is a moment in time where we're not sinning?

The reason I bring this up is because I just recently read on another blog someone discussing the evils of the sin of loneliness. The idea being that if you're feeling lonely, you're not letting God fill your needs.

That may seem extreme to many of you, but why? Why is it extreme? Why is sadness not a sin if anger is? And if you think anger is not, why isn't it?

As a result of this conundrum of a question, I am a big fan of the liturgical practice of absolution of sin. Whatever the heck that sin was, it's nice to hear someone say that it is now gone.

Are You Feeling the Fierce Urgency of Now??

It's Not You, It's Me
Letter from a young, hip, cynical former Obamamaniac.
By Dahlia Lithwick, taken from Slate.com


Dear Barack:

I know it's kind of lame to break up with you on Valentine's Day. And on the Internet to boot. But it's also kind of ironic. And that's what I need to tell you. As an ironic, contrarian, so-hip-it-hurts Gen X-er, I just can't love you anymore. I can't like you because … because, well, everyone else does. And suddenly supporting you just seems soooo last week.

Last week, my hip friends were all thronging stadiums and manning phone banks for you. Now they're all blogging against you and downing water and Tylenol like they've just done 12 Obama shooters in 20 minutes and then barfed in the cloakroom.

I know this is going to sound strange, but it's not you, Barack, it's me. Really it always was me, but now it's really, really about me. I don't know when we started to feel weird supporting you, but: My friend Hanna thinks it started with that "Yes We Can," video. I mean, last week I was totally crying watching it. Now just thinking about how choked up I got gives me the creeps. I think I felt something at the time, but even if I did, I'm pretty sure I don't want to feel it anymore. Feeling inspired is soooo early-February.

Or maybe it started when everyone began madly posting last week about how you are not the Messiah. And that got me thinking. Then, when commentators started accusing me of being a venomous drone in a "cult of personality," I just needed to get out. I mean cults are soooo 1970s. And cults of personality? So totally first century.

Cult or no cult, this week I just started getting really confused about you. I mean, when people start to say that your strengths are actually weaknesses? That just makes sense, if you really think about it. I mean, what's the point of being such an inspirational speaker if all you can do is give inspirational speeches? Do better, Barack. I mean, do worse!

So I've been thinking a lot about our time together, Barack. Supporting you wholeheartedly was the best damn 14 days of my life. I liked you before liking you was cool. But now it is, so it's not. Know what I mean? At least now I can go back to being flip and cynical and edgy again. I bet you wish you could, too.

But don't be sad! My friend has a Web site: IlikedObamabeforehewascool.com. It's not much of a site, but it sure is funny. As for me, well, I just can't be comfortable liking you now that liking you is like liking an iPhone. Maybe if you can be more of a jerk or play hard to get or something? Maybe you could uninspire some of your fans? Maybe then I could believe in you again. I'm hopeful. Or at least just hopeful enough to still be cool.

Me, I'm going to roll up my sleeves and start working for the Dennis Kucinich 2012 campaign. Edgy, no? And if things start really truly going south for you, I want you to know that you can count on my future fleeting and conditional support in the months and years ahead. Yes, you can.

WebMD is RIDICULOUS

Say you have a headache. One that kind of is creeping in through the back of your neck and up to your temple. You say to yourself, "I wonder what kind of headache this is. Maybe I'll look on WebMD, to see if they have any helpful tips."

So you click on the little symptom checker guy and you enter in (truthfully) your sex and age range, and then prepare to give the WebDoc your symptoms. You click on your head and then the top of your head, and then the Doc asks you to check which of 85 options matches your symptoms. Hmm....Agitation, Anxiety, Apathy...no, more like a headache. Blackouts...wow, that sounds bad. Broken bones....COMA???? THEY'RE ASKING ME IF I'M IN A COMA???

No, I am not in a coma, but now I am suffering a little anxiety as well. I'll click on "headache" and give a little more information on where it is and how much it hurts and wait excitedly for my diagnoses. The results narrow it down a bit: I could possibly have a sunburn, caffeine withdrawal, or a stroke.

Ya gotta love the internet.

None

None

Spring is in the Air

Yeah dancing Johnny!!!
















Looks like someone asked a dumb question.

Sympathy is her Kryptonite

Poor Hillary.

I hate to say it, because I do believe those two little words are the WORST thing she possibly could ever hear. If she was to hear them spoken to her face, I think her green sugar facade would begin to melt.

And of course a large part of me is routing for her. The part of me that routes for any woman who is battling tooth and nail against the odds and is this close to actually achieving equality on a monumental level (You Go Girl!!!).

But don't you get the feeling that she wants this just a little too much? That she, in some ways, is closer to G.W. Bush than any other candidate in her prophetical desire to lead her people? For Obama or McCain or Huckabee there is a quite decent forseeable future, even if it doesn't include "Hail the Chief". But I have a sneaking suspicion that for Hillary, her horizon lies quite close. Her life does not continue beyond this last passionate pursuit. Which, even if she did win, would be a little sad. Her life's purpose would be over like a quick and destructive tornado leaving her with (most likely) a few trophies, perhaps, several blurry memories, an unspecified number of stress-related health issues, a crazier marriage than she already has now, and probably more regrets than she expected. To be the first woman president could be amazing, but it could also be over-priced.

Poor Hillary.

Theology of Sorrow

A little while ago I had a rather ambitious urge to write a book discussing a potential "Theology of Sorrow". I even got so far as to write an introduction! Who knows whether it will ever get beyond that. In any case, I'd love to hear some of your thoughts about God and us and sorrow, and how they interact. I've pasted my rough introduction below, to incite your comments:


I’d like to make it clear from the start that I am no theologian. Perhaps that should prohibit me from calling anything I say a “theology”. But hopefully I will be forgiven since God has indeed granted me a mind with which to study Him, however amateur its process may be.

It has come to my attention that the current Christian discourse—or at least the circle of discourse to which I am privy—has many “theologies of” (fill in category). An extensive theology of poverty, for example, or Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body, regarding issues of marriage and sexuality. The theology of suffering is another area given to extensive discussion. These are called “theologies” because they are sincere attempts to reconcile human situations with God’s character.

Poverty and suffering are naturally common topics because on the surface they seem so disconnected with two of God’s most popular characteristics: love and omnipotence. But when we examine the life of Jesus, we see God’s process of identifying with us rather than fixing us.

One of the Bible’s most familiar passages on the suffering of Jesus is in Isaiah 53:3; He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Being “familiar with suffering” is something some churches practically encourage nowadays. Not being ridiculed?—you’re probably not witnessing enough. Not under spiritual attack?—seems the devil doesn’t think you’re enough of a threat to him! On a more positive note, I have heard several sermons preached on the topic of “passion”, emphasizing the fact that the Latin root of our modern-day word originally meant “suffering”. (This is apparent some contexts, for example, “the passion of the Christ”.) The implicit message being: in order to be a passionate Christian, suffering must be a major component of one’s life. Although these messages may tend to encourage the listener towards false martyrdom, the point here is that there are indeed messages about it. People are talking about suffering in the context of being Christ-like, and are grappling with whatever implications that may have.

But Isaiah does not let suffering alone describe the Servant. He is also a “man of sorrows”. Personally, I don’t believe those two features share an obvious connection. One can be suffering cheerfully or angrily or defiantly. Or sorrowfully. And Isaiah identifies Jesus as being a man of sorrows. In the next few pages I would like to explore the implications of this trait of Jesus’, and what it means for the expectations of Christian life and our relationship with God.

New Favorite Quote

Last week my husband, Ben, and I went to see Shakespeare's "As You Like It" with our good friends the Murgatroyds. I came away with a renewed appreciation for Shakespeare's WACKY sense of humor. Here, for your pleasure, is my new favorite quote:

"I can suck melancholy out of a song as a weasel sucks eggs."

I find this funny on so many levels. I'll leave you to guess which levels those are;).

Can a person be both a Christian and a Democrat?

I'm always surprised when I hear this question posed, not only because the answer seems so obvious to me, but because the total opposite answer seems so obvious to the other person! For the record, I would like to state that my response to that question is a resounding, "Yes!".

Now, on to the issues.


Abortion
Firstly, I don't believe that abortion is the defining issue between Republicans and Democrats. There are actually millions of Democrats who would define themselves as pro-life. (In contrast, a good percentage of Republicans are pro-choice, showing that party affiliation itself does not define a person as "pro-life" or "pro-choice".) According to Democrats for Life,
"43% of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion 'destroys a human life and is manslaughter'", and 50% believe that "in general it is morally wrong to have an abortion." Many Democrats are angry at the way pro-choice extremists have hijacked the party platform.

Although the label "Democrat" in no way equals "pro-choice", I do see a difference in pro-life Republican and pro-life Democratic attitudes towards the issue itself. Republican rhetoric tends to lean heavily on accusation for the deed, while Democrats seem to show more compassion for the woman in the position of making such a terrible choice. In my experience, Republicans see Democratic compassion towards a pregnant woman considering an abortion as making light of the evil of "baby killing". Not only is this unbiblical, but it hurts the position of Republicans, who are seen as cold-hearted and uncaring of women. Republicans are seen as valuing an unborn child with no earthly experience more than a grown woman with years of life experience. Some would argue that the woman's quality of life should be valued over that of an unborn child. I am not arguing that here. I am saying that, at the very least, every effort should be made to identify with the predicament of a woman caught with a life-changing, possibly traumatic choice on her hands.


Gay Marriage
I do not actually believe that there are many Democrats who are unequivocally supportive of "gay marriage". I put this in quotes to distinguish it from civil unions, because the gay community sees a big distinction there. To be given the right to marry would be to have their relationship publicly legitimized, while a civil union, although identical in content, has a second-class connotation. Both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are in favor of civil unions, but not marriage. (I do wonder why they make this distinction--I suppose it is to cater to those who would like to think of themselves as open-minded, but continue to be squeamish when it comes to the word "marriage". I don't think that, for them, there is a religious reason.)

I believe that Christians who hold a traditional view of Scripture (i.e., the majority of it being textually literal) cannot hold the homosexual lifestyle to be God's ideal. However--and this is where the difference lies--it is not the role of a secular state to dictate the lifestyle choice of those who do not hold Scripture in high regard. In fact, it is the duty of the state to treat everyone with equality and justice, regardless of their religious or family choices.

Of course, this does not include situations that are obviously harmful, such as abusive relationships. Some, such as Dr. Dobson, have argued that homosexual relationships are indeed harmful to everyone around them. I find his apocalyptic analysis to be at best speculative and at worst, dangerous. He seems to have very little faith in the power of good families, if he is so afraid at their imminent downfall. If the traditional family is indeed "better" than any other kind, I believe society will not be blind to that. But in the meantime, the traditional family is not going to collapse solely because a gay couple marries and moves in next door.

This is a much longer conversation, and cannot be fully fleshed out in summary form.


Secular Public Education (Separation of Church and State)
Very simply, to force religious ideas on those who do not hold them is, eventually, to have contrary religious ideas forced on you. The oppressor will eventually become the oppressed.

Immigration
I don't see how this a Biblical issue. Personally, I would like to see immigration quotas raised dramatically, so that it would be easier to get a legitimate visa into the US.

Social Welfare (including health care)
The arguments generally are whether it is the job of the church or the government to provide for the poor. I happen to believe one would fail without the other, and that they are both vitally important.

For Republicans, the argument usually comes down to the fact that 1) it is wrong for the government to tax my hard-earned money just to give it to those who haven't earned it, and 2) those who are taking welfare checks are working the system and don't want to become legitimate members of society. They quote Paul who saying, If you don't work, then you don't eat. I haven't seen any statistics on this, so this is pure speculation, but I have a hard time accepting the fact that everyone who gets welfare checks or food stamps isn't working. Sure there are those with flexible morals who like to con the system, but there are those people in every tax bracket. Potential misuse is not alone a reason to completely disband a program.

As far as biblical support goes, Israel itself had its own form of community welfare. Ruth was herself a benefactor. Israel also had laws against charging interest or selling food at a profit, and had a system for canceling debts.

Jesus's oft mis-quoted phrase, "The poor will always be among you" is in no way excusing our responsibility towards the poor. Quite the opposite! Jesus is commenting on the beautiful gift of worship the woman has lavished on him, and reminding his disciples of the many opportunities they will have to serve the poor in the future, after Jesus's short time on earth had come to an end.

Justice for the needy is, I think, the primary value of the Democratic party, and I find this to be completely in line with the God of scripture.


Capital Punishment
As much as some would like to say that the death penalty is quite obviously supported by scripture, I do not see it. Perhaps I'll blog on this later, but I think both sides are quite easily supported by various verses.



There are, I think, many other differences, but I'll leave it at this for now. Even if you (speaking to Conservatives) disagree with all of my argument, I hope I have made a case that a true, Bible-believing Christian can indeed hold all of these opinions.

Finally, I would like to point out that no set of beliefs can get one into Heaven. It is only the blood of Christ which saves.

Cake or Death

The Today Show had a spot not long ago on this apparently FABULOUS chocolate cake that EVERYONE wants from epicurious.com. It's just an old fashioned Double Chocolate Layer Cake, but (as of this post) it has 1,094 reviews! That's a lot of people eating chocolate cake:). It gets 4 "forks", according to the website's rating system. I haven't tried it myself yet, but my mouth waters just thinking about it. You should try it! The world could always use a piece of chocolate cake:).

Let's try this again

So once again I am going to try to start blogging. I've done this several times, and each time I never got past the first post. I couldn't see the point of rambling on about my own ideas or experiences--who would actually care? Heck, I don't usually even care ;).

But recently I've been doing a lot of commenting on other people's blogs, and thought it would be nice to try to bring a few amateur commentators here. It's so much better when we actually have a discussion. In that vein, I'm going to try to leave every post with a question. Feel free to give your perspective.

Of course, I don't assume a rousing discussion is going to take place anytime soon, so in the meantime, I will commence talking to myself.

Those of you who know me know that I've come from a pretty traditional American Evangelical Christian background. Throughout college I had several mind-opening experiences (which haven't stopped--in fact, they continue to come all the time) and my world view has changed, if not dramatically, certainly noticeably. And yet, I still felt (feel) the need to interact with my past. I found Focus on the Family's blog for single 20somethings, Boundless, to be great in that regard. Here, finally, was a forum with which I could discuss some of the demons I felt were lurking in my closet. I could get some intelligent Christian feedback on many of the issues I'd been wrestling with the for past few years.

Unfortunately, a lot of the feedback I got wasn't very Christian-like. Which I thought was really a bummer! More than anything I wanted to interact with the "Christian Right" in a way that would bring light to both side's point of view. In the editor's most recent post, the question was raised as to whether the conservatives on the blog (which I suppose is Boundless's target audience) are bothered by all of the liberal opinions. Which kind of made me feel rejected, a little. Like that was a club that I wasn't a part of, even though I have pretty orthodox views on Scripture.

Another surprising thing was the disconnect between what kinds of statements people thought were "inflammatory" or not. Are liberals and conservatives really that much from another planet?

So, here's the question: What do you think? Are you liberal/conservative, and are you offended by the other side? What offends you, and what do you think it would take for the two sides to come together?