Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Remember when I used to spout off wisdom about acceptance and mindfulness? I thought I was learning about suffering. When a loved one dies, you have to let them go. You have to live in the present, not in the longing. Experience the sadness, and let it pass through you. Let it come back whenever it wants to, and pass through again. With a loss such as mine, living in the past is always an option, but it indulges sadness, breeds bitterness, and ultimately disrespects the beauty of the one(s) you lost. Living in the future is impossible - the thought of living hundreds, even thousands, more days without my boys is something I still can't, won't, and don't face. By necessity, the present moment is where I find myself, and even at its worst, it is bearable.
I mistakenly thought that these perspectives, and present-moment practices like mindfulness and meditation were treasure I'd store up for the next disaster to come my way. Today, I am taken aback by how difficult it is to be happy.
My living boys bring such joy, humor, energy, and excitement. But each day I have to let go -- grief is not even too strong a word. My newborns are gone, my 6-month-olds are gone, my boys learning to crawl are gone. I mar my happiness by resisting change, something I do almost everyday. I miss their 10-pound smallness, the smell of their feet before they were able to walk, and the way they used to need no nourishment other than my milk. Sometimes I look at them and don't even see them, because I'm missing what used to be. Or I worry over the future - today I realized that my best efforts to care for them only prepare them to face their own existential crises, not create a shortcut for them. I fear that one may be an angry person, and the other may be an imposter, running from the man he was created to be. In these times, I look at them and don't even see them, because I'm peering past them into their futures.
Joy and peace are right here, in every moment, there for the having. We ruin even our seemingly objectively happy circumstances, however, by evading the full experience of the present (and then call ourselves responsible for worrying, planning, and fretting). I have this day with these boys - not the little babies they were, and not the men they may become. Fortunately I didn't spend the entire day looking past those I love. I saw Oliver testing the cause-and-effects related to yelling for things, and I saw him rejoice over a snack, exploring every angle of his bottle. I saw Wesley writhing in the stroller, saying 'nap' in every way he knows how to say it, and later I saw him relax in his crib when I rubbed his belly. Right now, in the present moment, I am struggling to make peace with the day - I missed five hours of their day doing stuff at Bethel.
If I learned anything from sorrow, it is that the future is not a sure thing, and hard times will likely come again. Bonds that feel permanent, between husband and wife or mother and child, only last so long. Every day, the separation between the babies they were and the boys they're becoming are a reminder that connection and separation are wed. But connection is also real. Last week, a friend asked me how I picture my first three sons - where are they? I said I picture them as absorbed into the love of the universe, and when I live in love, we are together. Same goes for the living.
Friday, May 26, 2006
I read Zukin in grad school, and felt sure the reason I didn't like her writing was because I was a fundamentalist hick from Minnesota posing as an intellectual in grad school. If I were cooler, or if I were really an intellectual, I'd enjoy her.
Eleven years later, I still don't enjoy her writing. I only read two chapters of this book, and found it to be the same as her writing from the early 90s: hard for me to follow, Manhattan-centric, and oddly organized. She's a successful writer and sociologist, and I begrudge her none of her accolades, but her writing not my cup of tea. And not because I'm an uncool poser.
17 of 100. A Hidden Wholeness: The Journey Toward an Undivided Life: Welcoming the Soul and Weaving Community in a Wounded World. Parker Palmer.
Quotes I need to keep:
"Writers catch projections when readers say, in effect, 'You wrote a book on this subject, so you must be an expert on it,' tempting them to lose the edge of not-knowing that animates the best thinking and writing." (102)
"When you speak to me about your deepest questions, you do not want to be fixed or saved: you want to be seen and heard, to have your truth acknowledged and honored" (117).
16 of 100. Savages. Joe Kane.
Environmental/adventure/journalism perspective on Waorani.
Loved it. Stayed up thinking about it. Couldn't put it down.
15 of 100. Waorani: The Contexts of Violence and War. Clayton and Carole Robarchek.
Loved it. Stayed up thinking about it. Couldn't put it down.
2 Comments:
-
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
-
I love that first Parker Palmer quote. I enjoy books that are written out of someone's body of expertise, but I also appreciate books that are written out of someone's curiosity about something they don't necessarily know all the answers for. It's probably a better posture for writers to have a stance of writing to learn or writing to investigate a burning research question rather than writing to share their thoughts with the world.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
One problem is that I've never met a Wao, and after reading about skin fungi, fire ants, and the little fish that burrows into your urethra, I'm not likely to explore the Ecuadorian Amazon (Oriente) anytime soon. So I'm reliant upon films and writings, all of which have strong points of view. I've read missionary accounts of the Waorani spearings of Jim Eliot, Nate Saint, and the other MAF pilots, an ethnography, and a journalist's account of the environmental crisis facing the Waorani.
The Oriente is such dense rainforest that people live in small bands, of 40 or so, and don't encounter other cultures often. Many, many cultures live there, and the Waorani (once consisting of perhaps over 10,000 people total) were so isolated, their language isn't related to any other language. Since the 1950s, oil companies and missionaries have explored the region, each for their own purposes, and many, many cultures no longer exist. It's the exact same story as North America, except it's happening now. Indigenous people die of communicable disease, they make spurious contracts with governments, and surviving remnants are absorbed into the most despicable margins of the market economy.
Since the early 1990s in particular, Waorani land has been damaged by oil production and Waorani people are less and less isolated. Their way of life is irrevocably changed, and their viability altogether is threatened. The anthropologists focus on academic questions of violence, peace, and culture change. The journalist focuses on the environmental disaster. The missionaries seem to focus on morality and Christian conversion. The anthropologists and the journalist are extremely anti-missionary, but due to the otherworldly and narrowly moralistic accounts of their efforts, it's hard to see how the missionaries counter the secular descriptions of their actions.
I'm really just trying to learn, and fully realize I don't have enough information to make informed judgements. But I read an article about the Waorani, written last month by an evangelical, and it mentions only their religious lives, and without caveat says missionaries helped Waorani negotiate contact with outsiders (this exposure to outsiders brought disease, resettlement patterns, 'treaties' with oil companies, etc.). There is absolutely no mention of ethnocide, environmental disaster, or the obvious links between our society and theirs via oil. Might it be the case that in highlighting the 'spiritual' parts of life, our worldview blinds us to material reality? Honestly, I wonder whether many Waorani participated in a recent church/baptism/healing prayer service with descendants of the slain pilots because the missionaries offered them a meal, or a pot, or something else they needed. Both the anthropologists and the journalist argue that Christianity is a very thin veneer over traditional Waorani values which remain untouched. The anthropologists argue they met several Waorani who seem to really grasp Christianity and have been changed in their hearts and minds, but the rest use Christianity as they use any other aspect of the outside world - for their own ends. (And on points like that, author's point of view makes it difficult for me, a total outsider, to assess their claims). But aren't missionaries doing the same when they refuse to deal with obvious oppression, or worse, collude with the oppressors (Ecuadorian gov't, oil companies) in order to further their own ends? What would it mean to love the Waorani as we would like to be loved?
4 Comments:
-
Your post reminded me of last year sitting through an excruciating sermon by a man who heaped Christian praise on the conversion of Pitcairn Islanders to Seventh-day Adventism, without giving any context to the current island situation.
I grew up with the Pitcairn Island story from the Adventist perspective and received quite a shock when I read up on it in college. Convenient truths (and there was more than a grain of truth in the official story) are easier to market than the other kind.
More to your final point, however: isn't that what we're all looking for? People who love us as we'd like to be loved? -
There are a few good things to think and talk about there. First, if it can be distilled into a question, is this what you're asking?
When missionaries refuse to deal with obvious oppression, or collude with an oppressive government (& oil companies) in order to further their own ends...aren't they doing the same as unregenerate indigenous people who use Christianity as they use any other aspect of the outside world--for their own ends?
If that's the question, the answer is "Yes."
But what missionaries are you talking about? The missionaries I support have sacrificed "their own ends" for God's greater glory and that they might obey the Lord as they make disciples of all nations for Jesus Christ.
I once saw a sad picture of a missionary's converts. They were all liked up with poorly fitting blue polyester suits. Some had shoes with no shoestrings and nobody had socks. It was pathetic, because they were being made to conform to a 1950's Leave-it-to-Beaver kind of subculture.
Missionaries who are retro-American culture-bearers? Laughable. But missionaries are NOT all like that. And they are to obey the call of a sovereign God, who is using His people (not vise-versa) to redeem those whom He has chosen.
Our finest statesmen cannot successfully fix bad government or large profit-driven companies, so we don't want to put those expectations on the backs of missionaries.
My biggest concern is that as our hearts are moved by the changes to a culture, that our priorities get flip-flopped; that we honor the perishable more than the imperishable.By
Craver VII, at 9:30 AM
-
I spent a few weeks in Kenya and Tanzania last year and came back feeling quite conflicted about the role of missionaries there. On the one hand, I saw some great work being done, but on the other hand, I saw places where the missionaries were simply perpetuating colonialism.
I work in food aid, and even what we do is horribly complicated because there is a fine line between helping and harming people. We want to support them when they need food, but we don't want to upset their local markets, etc. -
All of our choices are complicated - consider trying to love one's own spouse, or one's own best friends, and the ways in which our best attempts sometimes harm other people's lives. In extremely cross-cultural situations, it seems as if the stakes are even higher, and the potential for unintended harm, and unforseen consequences, is huge.
For Christians, I just think it's essential that we look reality in the eye and really tell the truth about what we see, what we experience, and what we've done. There's a whole genre of 'missionary stories' that are constructed to maintain donor stability (which is an impt thing to do), but even more to the heart of it, perhaps such stories maintain missionaries' own sense that their dangerous and costly life investments are worth it.
Just recently, a missionary friend was asked by her mission agency to stop writing such truthful stories in her letters. The truth was too complicated, and implicated everyone in difficult and at times unwinnable situations.
Session title: Homosexuality and emergent churches
Session description:
Many denominations and individual congregations are in active conflict over the issue of homosexuality. How might we create fresh ways to move beyond the liberal – conservative impasse?
I will present themes and questions from queer theory that perhaps could inform Christian theology and church practice. Our session will mostly involve group discussion based on our local contexts and experiences, focused toward ways we can make a better future regarding sexuality, sexual orientation, and homosexuality in our faith communities.
I expect that participants will be of diverse theologies and practices regarding sexuality. I will encourage an ethos of hospitality in which all voices are welcomed and respected. The most important outcome of the session will be to cultivate friendships and a relational web of people in emerging churches who care about theology and practice regarding sexual identity.
I am a member of Solomon’s Porch. I am also an associate professor of anthropology at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. Sex and gender is one of my research and writing interests.
Time: Monday, June 5 6:30-8:30 pm. Feel free to bring your dinner along!
Cost: One unit ($25)
Location: Solomon’s Porch (Minneapolis)
Would you like to come? Or are you saying to yourself, I listen to Jenell jabber on a regular basis for free, so why should I pay to hear more? (In other words, if you're a friend/former student/acquaintance, then just come and don't worry about it.)
2 Comments:
-
Wish I could come! Sounds interesting.
-
Me, too. But I'm too far afield. How about a podcast? I'd pay...
By
, at 12:46 PM
Monday, May 22, 2006
Does anyone have both of the following characteristics?
1. Has 20-30 empty baby food jars with or without lids
2. Will see me at church next Sunday
If so, I'd take them off your hands. Or you could have a garage sale and sell them to me for $1/each.
3 Comments:
-
I have more than enough, but I won't be at church on Sunday, unless you plan to have church somewhere in the woods on Isle Royale next Sunday.
I am known to frequent coffee shops in Roseville near my office. A special delivery could be arranged. Email me. -
Funny, I knew they'd be useful someday...too bad I threw them when we moved last year.
Darn need to organize and purge! -
Thanks, Tim! As a token of appreciation, I'll make a 7-story pyramid of jars, and paint them like a Christmas tree. I'm sure you have room for it in your house.
If I have more spare time, I'm going to make Reindeer Potpourri jars decorated with cotton balls and pipe cleaners. And one Kuntry Kat jar for Rachel.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
1. Many $3-5 toddler t-shirts that were new when we bought them from Gymboree six years ago, and about which we are maintaining an overinflated sense of value.
2. We are elderly: our sale items were purchased in the 1960s and have been heavily used since then.
3. 90% plastic kids' toys, 10% dishwasher-etched glassware
4. Crafty, crafty, crafty
5. The best we have includes National Geographics, used shoes, and stained tupperware.
Words Overused to the Point of Meaninglessness on Garage Sale Signs
1. Huge
2. Large
3. Lots of
4. Moving
5. Multifamily
Things I Saw Today That Didn't Seem to be Selling
1. A garage full of $3-5 toddler clothes that were new many years ago.
2. A set of Partridge-family style embroidered zodiac wall hangings, half-finished. Priced to move, at .10/piece, but still a seller's challenge.
3. A potty seat, only $3, which I almost purchased. When I brushed away some dust, however, I realized that the dust was covering years-old dried urine coating the entire seat.
4. A rusty children's wagon for $20.
5 Comments:
-
me wife and i went to a "high-end" yard sale today. old clothes. printer paper from the mid 90s, books, and random junk. all the high end stuff must of been gone by noon. oh well.
By
, at 9:56 PM
-
I'd settle for garage sale signs with arrows on them that are large enough to be seen from the road and are pointing in the right direction.
-
My sentiments exactly!
If you're looking for kids' stuff like we are, I've found it's best to go to the really expensive neighborhoods where rich people spoil their one or two kids (read: lots of stuff that is barely used). The prices are in the "dollars" range, but it's usually worth it. Also, check craigslist for specific offerings at sales so you know where not to go, and where the neighborhood sales are. That way you can just pack the kids into the stroller and cart around the neighborhood without getting in and out of the carseats too many times. :) -
How about "Those same dime store novels that we try and sell in our yard every year".
By
, at 6:44 PM
-
Consignment shops are the new garage sale. I also like to hit up church garage sales when they're having bag day ($3 a bag or such). Jenell, I know its not really your neighborhood, but there's a fabulous kids' consignment shop in Champlin called Kids Rack.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
So much of what we read in high school was narrative, which is why I don't remember it. It leaves a number of lingering questions - am I a racist because I can't remember what happened in To Kill a Mockingbird? Why did the guy turn into a cockroach? Did my English teacher get saved after I slipped some evangelism into my essay on Faulkner? Was it a sin to read the profanity in Beowulf (but wouldn't it also have been a sin to disobey the teacher by refusing to read it)?
I understand the world more with theory and data than with narrative, literary and academic leanings that are a direct result of my being raised fundagelical. My academic approach has largely focused on theory, and empirical research that is more about bits of data than complex narrative. It’s also difficult for me to pay attention to my in-laws’ tremendously long and dramatic tellings of family lore (a story can take like ten minutes to tell), and even to remember details from the lives of my husband and children. I really don’t even remember details from my own life story all that well, but I know Bible verses, some Covenant doctrinal statements from confirmation, and the bibliography from my dissertation.
In my religious upbringing, I learned that faith is mostly a matter of theory, in that doctrine is what's truly true. Story is important, but ancillary to and illustrative of doctrine. God hid doctrine in story form so we'd have something on which to exercise our deductive reasoning. Bible stories took place in an alternate universe, and they may be arranged in flannel graph units without much regard to their own chronology, much less how they fit with 'worldly' history. Stories are also useful because they each have a moral - history as morality play. In short, stories are for kids, and propositions are for grown-ups.
‘Thief in the Night’, however, may be an exception. That is one hell of a story, and it played out in my nightmares for many years. Premillenialism shaped my expectations for daily life (I actually put off taking my gym requirement in college because I thought Christ would return before senior year. As a senior, I had to take Physical Wellness for Life with freshmen!). Still today, if I come home to an empty house, or call my parents and no one answers, I wonder for a second whether I’ve been left behind. But not if I call my sister and she doesn't answer.
If it's true that story is just a sloppy and unnecessarily elaborate elaboration upon propositions, then why not just skip the story and get to the point? I do understand the power of story, and when I describe my faith to friends who aren’t Christians, I increasingly find myself talking of my experiences of God, and my identity as a player in the long story from Eve and Adam to Sarah and Abraham to Jesus to now. I worry, however, that the neural connections in my brain were shaped early on to disregard story, and now I’m playing catch-up. I have to make conscious effort to remember stories – like the conscious healthy phrases or I-statements you make when you’re putting your shrink’s words into practice.
I need to get going now - there’s a meeting in my basement. A guy put up a huge wall chart explaining the end of the world, and a bunch of teenagers are trying to understand why driverless cars are littering the highways.
Life was filled with guns and war
And all of us got trampled on the floor
I wish we'd all been ready
Children died the days grew cold
A piece of bread could buy a bag of gold
I wish we'd all been ready
There's no time to change your mind
The Son has come and you've been left behind
17 Comments:
-
Way to go on the Larry Norman.
Are you still Premil? -
I am still a Larry Norman fan, not that you asked. I try to be as biblical as possible about eschatology, and also a social constructionist. The premil view has a history -- it's not a deep and wide part of Chrisitan orthodoxy-- and I was socialized to find that view persuasive.
The Scofield/LaHaye/88 Reasons premillenial dispensationalism is a derivation from scripture, not scripture itself, so it doesn't have the foundational hold on my life that it used to (but that Scripture itself still does). And while I make fun of 88 Reasons and the big wall chart, I do still wonder whether it might be true. But I don't believe any additional punishments will be added to my list because of the poking fun.
I also think that losing loved ones has helped free me from the need to have a highly controlled microscopic view on the future. If I can't even control my present, and it's right here in my grasp, then how can I control my understanding or my experience of the future? I believe the loved ones from whom I am separated rest in God's merciful hands, and so I also believe that is my destiny. How it all goes down is God's business. -
But Jenell, isn't scripture also a social construction?
-
Yes, obviously it is. Scripture too was created over time and for a purpose. And even more than the book itself, our understandings of its meaning and its authority are shaped socially. But I accept, on faith, its authoritative place in community life. And I acknowledge that my faith tradition has often made the Bible into an idol, or maybe a sort of priest. We refer to it, worship it, praise it, personify it, and write songs to it...often instead of God. So it's not that, but it's also not just an ordinary book.
If I had to make a hierarchy of authority made from books recently discussed on my blog, I'd say the Bible is first, then high school required readings, and then endtimes books. -
I had an interesting experience a couple of weeks ago. We were doing a series on "Myths of the Messiah" at church and I'd been asked to speak on the myth that Jesus is just another leader and that Christianity is no different from any other religion. At first, I went to the scholars, thinking I'd find "proof" (or at least convincing evidence), but then I realized that it just didn't resonate with me. Instead, I decided to tell stories of why I have chosen, after various times of deep questioning and even rejection of the faith, to keep returning to Christianity.
It made me realize that, for me, the stories are sometimes more valuable than the proof or doctrine. (It would also explain why I have an English degree and not a science degree. :-)
The thing is, though, I think we need people who process things differently. It makes our "truths" more well-rounded. -
Jenell, my wife had lunch with Larry Norman once. She said he's a really neat, unassuming guy.
I appreciate how you are able to stir-up dialogue. That's a cool gift.
Heather, what was it that didn’t resonate? Was it the preeminence of Christianity or the evidence put forth by those scholars?By
Craver VII, at 11:30 AM
-
Hi Jenell,
Man, with my totally mellow mainline upbringing, I have nothing to add to this conversation except to say that I'm delighted to learn of yet another reason to avoid gym class. -
"Thief in the Night’, however, may be an exception. That is one hell of a story, and it played out in my nightmares for many years."
Scared the shit out of me, I'll tell you, and I'm always glad to know of someone else who experienced "Rapture panic". I was so scared I'd be left behind, I don't remember how many times I prayed the sinner's prayer, just in case the first 47 times didn't take. And now I have the tune to the Larry Norman song running through my head. If you talk about backmasking next, my journey through my formative years in youth group will be complete....
ChristyBy
, at 12:02 AM
-
Christy, I did in fact briefly discuss the Peters Brothers exposing of secular music's backmasking. http://jenellparis.blogspot.com/2006/04/straight-up-now-tell-me-many-years-ago.html
After reading the Peters Brothers book, and then seeing them at a Christian booksellers convention (NOT a coincidence that I encountered them TWICE IN ONE YEAR), I threw away all my Bee Gees, Neil Diamond, and Barry Manilow tapes. I probably should have burned them, because someone might have found them in the trash and listened to them.
This was all in high school: rapture panic, pro-life activism, hellfire evangelism, and preventive steps against exposure to backmasking. No wonder I'm uncomfortable with the widespread exposure my subculture is getting in the media these days. -
craver vii - in answer to your question - a little bit of both AND the thought of doing a talk that was based more on "empirical evidence" than story.
And about rapture panic - I don't know how many times I walked into the house when I thought Mom was there and it would turn out she was gone and I'd wonder if she'd been taken without me. -
But then don't you have lists in your mind that structure those moments of panic: "Those who might be raptured while I'd be left behind", and "No way would God rapture them and not me"? My rapture lists always leave my status insecure, positioned between the surely saved (mom, dad, my parents' friends, and my pastor) and the surely unsaved (people I don't like, grown-ups who harm children, and televangelists unable to hide their moral hypocrisy).
-
Moments before my wedding began, I was interested to know who was at the church and who was not. It was funny to notice that so-and-so never wears a suit and doesn’t know anybody from my church, so he seemed a little awkward. But when my bride walked down the aisle, I had zero peripheral vision. My focus was inescapably locked on her.
It’s only human that lists are formed in our minds about who is secure in Christ. But it is soooo good to know that the worst villains are covered by the blood if they are in Christ. I am acutely aware of my sinfulness and honestly strive to live in a manner that is pleasing to the Lord, but “when the roll is called up yonder,” God’s Word and Jesus’ faithfulness is what I’ll be hanging on to.
1 Jn. 5:9-13 …I underlined the second half of verse 13.By
Craver VII, at 3:07 PM
-
I still think about "Theif in the Night." I had to watch it when I was young, too, and I hated it. I think there was a terrible sequel, too... "Twinkling of an Eye" or something like that...? Anyways, for years I thought I was the only one who had to watch those horrible movies.
-
Reading your blog is really bizzare for me. (Hi - this is Ben William's niece, Jessica. He sent you an e-mail about me). I grew up in a VERY conservative fundamentalist Christian culture, and I took two AP English classes in highschool, and have a degree in English Lit from the University of Miami. However, I do not know what backmasking is, have never heard of Theif in the Night, and never read Catcher in the Rye, Beowulf, andy Faulkner, in fact, most of the books mentioned in your highschool lit. posts and subsequent comments. It's like looking into a parallel universe! Nice to meet you, by the way :).
-
P.S.
The "andy" before Faulkner in my comment is a typo.By
, at 7:56 PM
-
Good grief, what a trip down warped memory lane. I covered a Peters Brothers record-burning for the Twin Cities Christian while I was a student of the then-publisher at St. Paul Bible College. Then, a little later, a fellow student and I skewered the Peters Brothers in a feature article in the SPBC student newspaper. Complete with a staged record-and-book burning, photographed by yours truly. The fellow student went on to head the Evangelical Press Association.
By
, at 5:30 PM
-
I resonate strongly with your point. I too have been trying to play catch-up and reject the old paradigm of emperical knowledge being superior. One of the ways I am playing catch-up is by writing stories/parables on my blog--it's facinating who all comes out of the woodwork to peek at it.
Good to read your blog. We know each other distantly from Bethel.By
espíritu paz, at 2:29 PM
Monday, May 15, 2006
Perhaps there is no help for me, other than to just keep reading. Two more have been added to the list since yesterday, as well.
I remember Beowulf, though I've probably forgotten how to spell it and i don't feel like looking it up. I only remember that it had bad words in it, so I tried to reprint those parts in the high school newspaper. They said they couldn't print profanity, so I started a campaign against Beowulf - if it's too profane for the newspaper, then why do we read it in class? God was proud of me for Holding High the Standard against profanity in the public schools. I also handed out pro-life pamphlets, used a hellfire evangelism platform, and demanded the right to pray on school grounds (which we won).
I also read To Kill a Mockingbird, and Raisin in the Sun (maybe that was a film). We did not read Catcher in the Rye, and I suspected it was because of my school's mediocre social class. I thought the rich kids in Maple Grove were reading it. I still haven't read it - should I add it to my list, or just wait until my boys are in high school and read it with them?
I can't remember any other books, though there must have been many others. I just remember the time my English teacher, Mr. Buzzelle, lost his temper and threw a dictionary at a kid.
Troy's comment about not reading Things Fall Apart prompted this post. So tell me, everyone, what did you read in high school? And more importantly, did it matter?
20 Comments:
-
What mattered most of what I read in high school? Fitzgerald, Faulkner, and maybe Shakespeare's Lear. It was what I read in college that still lingers with me.
But I can still recite the opening lines to Chaucer in Middle English -- we all memorized them back in the fall of 1984, and they've stuck with me ever since. -
I read:
- Animal Farm
- A book about Hiroshima
- Romeo and Juliet
- Macbeth
and a bunch of other stuff I can't remember. Beowulf (at least part of it) may have been one of them.
I'm reading Beowulf now, since I read that they're making a movie.
Catcher in the Rye would have been out of the question. I read it on my own and couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. -
I am the only person I know who enjoyed The Scarlet Letter in HS. Many of the books I read in HS I had to read again in college, and repitition did not serve them well: Beowulf, Hamlet, and Canterbury Tales didn't impress me the 2nd or third time through.
Catcher in the Rye=Blegh. Save it for when the class of 2023 reads it.
I do wish I had read more Shakespeare, Heart of Darkness, and Tolstoy.By
, at 4:38 PM
-
ooh, sorry...anonymous = kpg
By
, at 4:39 PM
-
i read catcher in the rye in one sitting one rainy weekend and just loved it. it was on the DO NOT READ list for my christian private school as was every other piece of significant literature other than the scarlet letter and the pearl by john steinbeck.
i had lots of catching up to do in college.By
, at 6:16 PM
-
I was stuck in mediocre English classes throughout high school. In one of them - I swear it - all we did was listen to the teacher argue with the boys (they antagonized her mercilessly) and underlined sentences for verbs, adverbs, nouns, and pronouns. It was pathetic; I don't think I read one book for that class.
I finally got into a college-prep English class my senior year, where we read through Shakespeare and Chaucer, but what I remember the most was the book I read for our independent year-end project: Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. That book lodged itself in my heart, where it still stays. I. Loved. It.
I did most of my reading outside of school, which is good; but I think I missed out. I wasn't introduced to much at my high school...the story of many, I suppose.By
A. Borealis, at 6:27 PM
-
"Catcher", "True Grit", some good short stories, other things I can't remember, a survey of philosophers when I was a senior. I liked the latter so much that I thought I liked philosophy- I took a philosophy course my first semester in college, which quickly disabused me of that idea :)
Dana AmesBy
, at 7:40 PM
-
This is helping me reconstruct years of my life lost to debate tournaments and youth group lock-ins. I also read Faulkner (what book was it? I think there was a man in it), Animal Farm (scary), Macbeth (boring), The Scarlet Letter (boring), and The Great Gatsby (also boring).
Readings I found interesting at that time in my life: the Bible, 88 Reasons Why Christ Will Return in 1988, law journals (debate stuff), and notes from my friends. -
Interesting that the "rich kids" in RICHfield were reading 'Catcher'...I don't remember much except that Holden Caufield was an extremely depressed character.
We were also reading
Romeo & Juliet,
Of Mice and Men,
Giants in the Earth (good contrast to Laura Ingalls Wilder),
Gatsby (loved it, still do!) Scarlet Letter (which was one that did matter for me),
1984 & Animal Farm (I still want to read Farenheit 451 - I've owned it for years and I think that one might matter too, considering how I value the power of story).
Mostly I think that reading these in HS opened me up to the Great Conversation and a love of literature. Many of the books deemed 'important' impact us differently depending on when we encounter them in our lives. Do they matter? Maybe today, but not tomorrow? or visa versa? We tend to read into what we read with our experiences...for example I loved the glamour and romanticization I found in Gatsby as a boy-crazy-16-year-old. What I love about it now is how it fits into and gives an example of my understanding of America in the 1920s. But today I see the story and characters as tragic.
I didn't read Things Fall Apart until a couple of years ago (again it has been on our shelves since my husband read it at Bethel...at least I assume he read it in Literature of the Oppressed!) What I brought to the reading in my 30s was vastly different than what I would've brought in my 20's.
Call me crazy, but I guess I suggest picking the ones you like, assuming you'll be more energized by them and that will impact your students...otherwise, let the chips fall where they may and some students will be inspired by some titles and others NOT! -
I read the typical Christian high school books, and most of them meant nothing to me. I think this was because, especially in my school, there was no discussion or involvement in the texts; the teachers told us how to interpret things and what everything "really" meant. Then we were tested on menial facts, like names of characters. Texts only started to mean anything to me when I started college courses (I was actually in high school at the time, but I don't count that as high school).
kpg -- I can't believe you wish you'd read more Heart of Darkness! I feel like I've read so much HoD and watched so much Apocolypse Now I could choke just thinking about it.
and Jenell, I love Catcher in the Rye; I read it every few years. -
I read all the usuals listed here in HS, then added a few unusuals: The Princess Bride--fab!, Lots of Ray Bradbury--love him, and some Hemingway. College led me to Thomas Hardy, who is still on of my favorites, Toni Morrison, and Flannery O'Conner.
I liked Catcher in the Rye, but not as much as Franny and Zooey (also Salinger). I also loved A Separate Piece (John Knowles I think) which sort of covers the angsty prep-school thing.By
, at 9:41 AM
-
Paradise Lost, Beowulf, The Iliad, 1984, Macbeth, Tom Sawyer...I've forgotten so much. For the most part, I really didn't enjoy reading until much later. Two of my favorites were not part of the curriculum.
Bram Stoker's Dracula kept me interested enough to find a quiet place to read...that was a rare thing in my house. (reading AND quiet)
I also enjoyed Grendel, which was Beowulf from the monster's perspective.By
Craver VII, at 2:05 PM
-
*1984 and Animal Farm-very gripping and very cool, got me obsessed with the idea of freedom, the horrible possiblities of the modern state
*Macbeth-so dark and powerful. I disliked it at first but really liked it once it was read aloud (as with most Shakespeare)
*The Scarlet Letter-injustice, hypocrisy: Considering my background, I probably didn't need to read this!
*The Fountainhead-the individual, heroism, corrupting forces of society: A dreadful book, worse than the the Left Behind books and The Davinci Code, complete with long propaganda speeches as text. Preachy libertarian drivel which I thought was great philosophy and art.
*Tess of the D'Urbervilles-injustice, industrialization
Chesapeake-change and continuity over a long period of time
*Romeo and Juliet Pretty cool, especially after I saw this movie version (Zeffirelli) of it
*A bunch of Steinbeck books--Tortilla Flat, Of Mice and Men, Cannery Row, The Grapes of Wrath--which I thought were really deep and made we want to be a socialist. The books are still great.
*Confessions by Augustine. Pretty cool that we read this. I was impressed by his intelligence, his spiritual struggles and quest. I never really understood why he felt so guilty about stealing the pears.
*I didn't read Catcher in the Rye until a few years ago, so that one (which many people seem to point out) doesn't do it for me. Which is probably a good thing as I am already tend to be a meloncholic smart ass. -
Amen to your words on Fountainhead, Troy.
It's a bit like what Shaw is said to have said about Marxism: "She who doesn't find Ayn Rand compelling at 18 has no sense of independence -- she who still finds Ayn Rand compelling at 38 has no heart or head." -
Fabulous quote about Rand! I read Atlas Shrugged and was interested in parts of the story, but felt sorry for her, in some ways, for whatever brought her to a state of mind so devoid of compassion and empathy. I guess she saw enough excesses and hypocracy in post-1917 Russia to mold her thus.
By
Maria Kenney, at 10:54 PM
-
Reading everyone's responses made me feel that either my highschool chose a lot of the "classics" for us to read, or they were too unoriginal to come up with anything else for us to read.
In highschool I loved reading these books/plays/short stories:
Romeo & Juliet at the same time as West Side Story
Great Gatsby
Catcher in the Rye
Crucible
Othello
The Lottery
I Am the Cheese
Animal Farm
I hated reading:
Great Expectations
All Quiet on the Western Front
Billy Bud
In college I took a course in Children's Literature (a requirement for the El. Ed. major) and discovered some great books that every adult should read:
Holes
Harry Potter (even though it's evil)
Charlotte's Web
Bridge to Terribethea
Matilda (and anything else by Roald Dahl)
The Wrinkle in Time Series by Madeleine L'Engle -
Wow - I guess high school works, and really does draw us into the 'great conversation.'
I also read the one about the man who wakes up and is a cockroach. What's the name of that one? It's something spelled backwards - ahcaracuc? -
it's Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka. I don't know if it means anything spelled backwards.
By
, at 9:22 AM
-
Some other books that haven't been mentioned yet:
Cyrano de Bergerac
Grapes of Wrath
And Then There Were None
Diary of Anne Frank
Cry, the Beloved Country
Also, one of my English teachers was a huge fan of Jon Hassler's novels - Staggerford, Grand Opening, The Love Hunter, Simon's Night, etc. These weren't assigned texts, and I didn't actually read them until college, but he's now one of my all-time favorite authors, partly because he's a Minnesotan. -
None of my teachers ever threw a textbook, but my chemistry teacher did accidentally blow up part of his desk during an experiment gone awry. It shook the building.
I think we read all the standard stuff in my high school.
Jenell, I also read the "88 reasons why Christ will return in 1988." Not everyone can say that, as it clearly not destined to rate as one of the great pieces of literature. I bet you watched "Like a Thief in the Night" in your youth group. Apparently they passed that one out to every fundamentalist church in American in the 80's...
ChristyBy
, at 4:04 PM
Saturday, May 13, 2006
I have received a haul of books from various places, and instead of reading them one by one, I've read the beginnings of nine of them. Another ten or so are still closed, and will remain so for awhile. But how will I make my way through these nine?
Parker Palmer. A Hidden Wholeness. I'm halfway through it, and it sits on the tank of the toilet. I read it during babies' baths.
Judith Butler. Undoing Gender. Her new thoughts on sex and gender- fantastic, absorbing, wonderful. Extremely dense, and must enjoy every single word - the literary equivalent of Cafe Latte's turtle cake. I'm up to page 40. I read it when babies are sleeping, because it doesn't tolerate interruption.
Joe Kane. Savages. An environmental thriller based on his travels among the Waorani. His descriptions of indigenous people are exoticized and irritating, yet he really was there and had interesting adventures. My, how quick I judge. I'm only on page 8.
Michael Gurian. Boys and Girls Learn Differently. Read a chart in chapter 1.
Chinua Achebe. Things Fall Apart. Please don't tell anyone I've never read this (my high school teacher's fault). It's because I went to a public school in a mediocre suburb (my parents' fault). Up to chapter 3.
Khaled Hosseini. The Kite Runner. Read page 1.
Jim Northrup. The Rez Road Follies. Read a random page in the middle. Liked it.
Paul Johnson. Love, Heterosexuality, and Society. Empirical research on what it's like to be heterosexual. Hmm. Read the methods section.
Timothy Tyson. Blood Done Sign My Name. I'm up to chapter six, but got bogged down in I'm not sure what. Must be caramel - this one is like turtle cake, too.
Suggestions regarding priorities or strategies are welcome. Maybe the boys need to bathe thrice daily.
5 Comments:
-
I can totally relate - I usually have too many books started, too.
Can I recommend that you shelve kite runner until your twins turn, oh, 40 or so? It's a heart breaker for a tender mom with boys such as yourself.
I couldnt read big chunks of it anyway - As is "ugh, something horrible is about to happen...I think I will skip ahead 4 pages and see if it's any better. No? Ok, try 10 more..." -
After taking a look at my study carrel a minute ago, I realize I have nothing to offer you in the way of strategy, only empathy and encouragemnt (and envious awe, as you appear to be much more on the ball tham I am -- and wth twins too!).
I used to read a little whem nursing, but now my daughter gets distracted and tries to read too, which sometimes results in the book being sprayed, as it were. The library doesn't think it's as funny as Miranda does.By
Maria Kenney, at 11:53 AM
-
If Judith Butler's words are as delicious and dense as Cafe Latte's turtle cake then my goodness I will have to read it, for that is high praise indeed.
I didn't read Things Fall Apart until graduate school. I would rather have read that in high school than Bleak House or Ethan Fromm, but those are good for you in their way, I guess. -
If I start reading while nursing, then Ollie starts biting while nursing. Not only must my attention toward him be full, it must also be rapt.
-
Ah, yes, the biting... where are these kids' manners???
By
Maria Kenney, at 10:50 PM
Thursday, May 11, 2006
What is it that you could just do when you get mad? I like to throw things away. I don't do it with angry sounds or mannerisms; I just choose something like a file drawer, a decorated wall, or a refrigerator, and I throw as much stuff away as possible. One drastic example, two years ago, was getting rid of over a hundred books. It felt really good at the time and I don't regret it, though I have had to repurchase a few. When I was younger, I used to wash the surfaces of doors and clean the grooved edges of every screw-top thing I owned (shampoo bottles, etc.) when I was mad. That was a little OCD-ish, and after I did some therapeutic work, the impulse was gone forever. But the itch to just throw a bunch of junk in the trash...that one still likes to be scratched. Along with my affection for Gaither medleys and my ability to multitask, I got the pitching habit from my mom. My mom once said to me and my sister, "You girls make me so mad, I threw away my wedding dress so neither of you can have it!" She really did, and now neither of us have it.
I threw away some stuff at my office day before yesterday (favorite cartoons, a poster of Jesus, and two spider plants), and it assuaged the beast. I didn't let go of sanity altogether - I sorted the pile and hung onto a Wendell Berry poem, the four-year-old card from a student that says I'm really great, and the number one cartoon. I suspect everyone has their own way of creating a space for anger to flow through and flow away. What is yours?
12 Comments:
-
I just throw things. Not away.
By
, at 11:35 PM
-
I swear. When I am done swearing I clean (not throw, just clean). While I clean I swear in my head some more.
-
Thank goodness -- swearing missionaries -- I thought we were the only ones. Ah, the solidarity...
And from my 9 month old, I've learned the value of flailing my arms wildly and then smacking them down with a BANG!, accompanied by shrieking.By
Maria Kenney, at 12:03 PM
-
When I'm angry I clean.
When I'm depressed, I paint the walls of my house a new color.
I'm so happy these days that I have a messy, beige-walled house.
Colleen wBy
, at 12:09 PM
-
i wish i was one of those people who exercised when angry or depressed. alas, i eat, or go to multiple movies in a row, or make out with inappropriate people.
katieBy
, at 12:19 PM
-
I not very good at working out my anger. Often times i eat, cry, and tell myself that it - whatever it is - is all my fault.
kpgBy
, at 3:47 PM
-
I have been known to purge, but I usually give the stuff away (either to people directly or to Goodwill/thrift shops). I have a problem with just throwing things in a landfill even when I'm mad. Though I did throw out some photos and other items related to a failed relationship at least once, in the actual trash.
-
I move to Chattanooga.
That, and shave my head from time to time (it's true). -
I am so tempted to ask for stories related to inappropriate making out, but I suppose I shouldn't ask people to follow where I am unwilling to lead. (I'll tell you in person, but not on the internet).
I'm also taking notes. Next time James makes me mad, he better watch out. I'm going to throw stuff at him, flail my arms, clean and paint, and swear like a missionary. -
I once cut off 5 inches of hair. The "you fill in the blank" I was dating liked long hair. After it was cut I had a bob.
Now I guess I go for a walk or try and figure out if I'm having PMS and blame it on that.By
, at 9:52 PM
-
I cry. Probably because the only things that make me mad are those things that hurt me. And, when I hurt, I cry.
By
carouselswan, at 4:39 PM
-
I cry & swear a lot.
Sometimes I hack of some of my hair or dye it.
But mostly I cry & swear.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Ted Olsen writes a critique of The New York Times article that equates Protestant anti-contraception views with being anti-sex. Aside from the obvious point that American culture could perhaps be more balanced by some anti-sex polemics, Olsen is correct in saying that the anti-contraception position is not anti-sex. It's a silly point to even make, but it bears repeating because of TNYT reporter's silly bias.
I still wonder whether the 'growing Protestant anti-contraception' position is actually growing, or whether it has gained some media attention because of recent publications (like Open Embrace). I'd like to see survey research on Protestants actually rejecting contraception. Catholic doctrine yields much debate in America, but little compliance (I've seen survey data reporting that up to 80% of American Catholics use artificial birth control). It's hard to know whether this discussion is philosophical or pragmatic.
Olsen also points out correctly that natural birth control (fertility awareness, natural family planning, the ovulation method, and the sympto-thermal method are all based on the same science) IS NOT the rhythm method, another silly bias and point of misinformation that persists. The rhythm method is based on assuming fertile days by counting dates on a calendar. NFP/fertility awareness is based on collecting data and assessing fertility on a day-to-day basis (cervical fluid, temperature). It works (over 95% effective if used correctly), and the rhythm method doesn't. Got it? Good. I don't want to go over that again.
In our efforts to honor each conceived life, we should devote equally meticulous attention to women's lives. The anti-contraception position shapes womens' lives profoundly. For me, just being pregnant twice in a span of four years has greatly affected my career, my physical and mental health, and my marriage, and not all for the better. I am not willing to be pregnant nine or ten times, to risk more infant loss, and to abandon my service to God's broader kingdom for the sake of having a large family. (And don't say that I could be an exception b/c of my circumstances - a true anti-contraception position would require me to continue being open to reproduction). My reproductive potential is only one part of my created giftedness, and I feel responsible to steward all parts of that potential, not letting one part subsume the others.
I recently read a quantitative research article that correlated religious conservatism with quality-of-life indicators for women. Girls in religiously conservative upbringings have lower qualities of life as adults, in large part due to lower levels of education, and earlier age at marriage and reproduction. If girls look to their futures and see only pregnancy and motherhood, they begin truncating their personal development long before adulthood.
Like Olsen, I'm weary of stereotypes against natural family planning and against Christian families. But I'm also weary of Christian theologies that, in the name of promoting life, sabotage the health and happiness of girls and women.
8 Comments:
-
Oh amen, Jenell -- great post. You, more than virtually anyone I know, are well qualified to speak on this issue. Frankly, you need to get a piece into CT pronto making exactly the case you make here.
In your abundant free time, of course. -
You are so wise. I think alot of those fundamentalist theologians and big mouths need to get down and dirty with a few more vulnerable people - spend some time in their lives - and then see if they still can spout off generalizations. Once you've spent time with and made friends with the hurt, the poor, the marginalized, it's alot harder to make broad sweeping statements about what is right and wrong. Supporting a roommate through an abortion was a great learning experience for me.
-
Uh, Heather, who are you calling a generalizing fundie?
On a more general note: Yeah, I agree that the anti-contraception position shapes womens' lives profoundly. But the fact is that contraception shapes women's lives profoundly, too, and that various forms of contraception can shape people's lives in different ways. Protestants' uncritical embrace of contraceptive technology over the past half-century is a problem. So is an uncritical, all-sunshine-and-light embrace of an anti-contraception perspective (see, for example, how Bethany Torode has backed off of some of Open Embrace at OpenEmbrace.com.) What annoys me about the Times article is that it assumes that recent discussions about contraception are driven by conservative Protestant animus toward sex in general. That's crazy, and it's just the opposite of what's happening: The Protestants I'm reading on this point are reflective, not reflexive. -
Ted mentioned in his original post that the morning after pill is prompting pro-birth control pill Protestants to rethink their ethics. Both may cause the uterine rejection of a fertilized egg, though whether or not the birth control pill does so remains an contested and open question. Emergency contraception is similar - it may cause uterine rejection, or may slow the passage of a fertilized egg through the fallopian tubes. The mechanisms of action are numerous, complex, and extremely difficult to observe under real-life conditions.
Many Protestants embraced the birth control pill even while remaining radically pro-life (life begins at fertilization). That has never been a consistent ethical stance, and it's good that we're being pushed to examine it.
There are numerous issues that often are lost in bumper-sticker pro-life rhetoric. The ethics of mechanisms of action is one, and the joy (or abhorrence) of sex itself is another. The impact of birth control or its absence on women is one. The ability to distance oneself from the consequences of one's sexual choices is another issue, especially for men, as is the financial and psychic responsibility of caring for a large family (Anyone watching Big Love? That guy has a lot on his shoulders! But I suppose polygamy is a digression...) -
I've known enough single mothers to think that women should be the only ones who get to have these conversations about birth control. Men can walk away from children they father with few consequences--and child support is not a consequence. But a woman is far less likely to do so. Her life is forever altered by bearing a child, even if she aborts the child. I do think there is an underlying message among some Christians that limiting birth control will lead to limiting sex outside of marriage. The morning-after pill isn't just a pro-life issue. I can't help but sense a smugness in the politics behind the morning-after pill. There seems to be this underlying message that a woman who would request such a thing deserves whatever trouble her illicit sexual activity brings about. As for the regular pill, there is so much ignorance about why women take it. If men got cramps or couldn't get out of bed two days a month, they wouldn't just want some kind of pill, they'd make them free!
Hi Ted.By
, at 6:53 PM
-
Perhaps I was a little harsh with the generalization Ted (I do that sometimes, sorry. I wasn't referring to you though, for what it's worth), but my point still stands. It's easier to say things are right or wrong if you haven't ever walked a mile in someone's shoes. I guess my point is I wish Christianity were more about grace than about determining whether or not contraception is wrong. I've seen too many people get deeply hurt by all the rules and the rhetoric.
-
I struggle with what you're saying, Heather, because I've felt judged by those who haven't been through my harrowing and ethically complicated situation. Even in the midst of it, I felt that it was helpful to have thoughtful Christians outside the circumstance offering ethical perspective. It is also essential to honor the stories and idiosyncrasies and hearts of those in the situation. I just don't think we can push aside someone's view because of the person's experience or inexperience - we need a range of voices to help us think about right and wrong.
-
By
Josh Fuller, at 1:29 PM
Jim Johnson's "Straight but not narrow" blog is worth checking out.
I am notoriously bad with political details, but I read an article about happenings within the PCUSA. A theologically diverse taskforce is recommending a 'third way', or compromise solution, regarding homosexuality. It recommends retaining national standards against ordaining noncelibate gay/lesbian persons, but allowing for local ordination for dissenting individuals and congregations. Needless to say, many conservatives don't like the local freedom, and many liberals don't like the national standards.
I figure that when both sides criticize you, you're either totally wrong and deserve criticism from all sides, or you're on to something good, a fresh path.
What I like about the PCUSA proposal is that it takes theological diversity as a given. Instead of trying to coerce theological conformity, it is trying to incorporate and retain all sincere believers within the church. It might prove impossible, but I think they are asking the right questions.
(I read this in The Christian Century, but didn't find any links that I could offer)
1 Comments:
-
"What I like about the PCUSA proposal is that it takes theological diversity as a given. Instead of trying to coerce theological conformity, it is trying to incorporate and retain all sincere believers within the church. It might prove impossible, but I think they are asking the right questions."
This is what I love about my church, part of the Anglican Union, a unity that will soon be put asunder I think. A via media might be found but it doesn't look like it.
Monday, May 08, 2006
I would like to just be a Christian, not a radical Christian or an urban Christian or a racial reconciliation Christian. Faith adjectives tend to become idols, replacing their noun in life-giving power. My journey through countercultural urban ministry life was not a phase - it was an outward expression of the self I still am. It carried elements of immaturity, hypocrisy, arrogance, and idolatry, and hopefully I've learned to look for such things in any season of life, even the suburban. Similarly, parenting offers idols. The 'gentle parenting' people are not always gentle with each other or themselves, goading on organic/natural standards of perfection, striving to 'make it' in someone else's eyes. (But, just in case you're wondering, I've planted an organic cotton field in my backyard so I can control soil input, spin thread, and make diapers myself. If it becomes too difficult, I'll hire new immigrants and pay them double a living wage).
'Radical' uses some reference point as a norm against which it exists, just as the countercultural relies upon the culture against which it counters. I believe Jesus calls us to a positive way of life, one that takes culture into consideration, but doesn't get life from that which it opposes. It is centered in Jesus, derives its energy from Jesus, and is totally positive, fresh, and real. Irresistible Revolution is, well, irresistible because of its loving, proactive call that is centered upon loving Jesus and loving people, not reacting to the bad culture or bad American Christianity, and not establishing identity by being different or reactionary.
Evangelical Christians have not enjoyed cultural respectability and middle-class upward mobility for long. My fundamentalist pastor grandpa traded sermons for chickens, and rejected home ownership because his home was in heaven (he left behind a poor widow, but she knew she would soon join him in a mansion). My parents are the generation who bought washing machines, owned two cars, and put their kids through college. And here I am, two generations removed from fundamentalist, separatist, hardcore countercultural Christianity. No wonder why my shiny red minivan simultaneously brings me joy and discomfort. When religious movements strive for cultural respectibility, they earn it at a price.
Judith Butler writes about non-normative sexualities and genders, but this applies to middle-class people of faith. "The 'I' that I am finds itself at once constituted by norms and dependent on them but also endeavors to live in ways that maintain a critical and transformative relation to them. This is not easy, because the 'I' becomes, to a certain extent unknowable, threatened with unviability, with becoming undone altogether, when it no longer incorporates the norm in such a way that makes this 'I' fully recognizable." (Undoing Gender, p.3)
Sadly, when individual Christians choose distinctively faithful paths (see Tonya's comments, or jen's), they become unrecognizable to both the culture and to their religious communities. We need to build communities of faith that allow us to maintain a critical and transformative relation to the culture, communities in which we are fully recognized and known, and that free us to even more fully recognize and know ourselves.
1 Comments:
-
Interesting post. I spoke in church yesterday, and after leaving myself quite exposed by revealing perhaps a little too much of myself and my struggles(as I have a tendency of doing), I realized that, though I try to be mildly radical, I still live with some fear of the more conservative members of the congregation. Like so many others, I let the message get watered down because of the fear of reprisal. I'm part of a pretty open and authentic community, but even there there are people who don't want the boundaries tampered with.
Friday, May 05, 2006
In his own words, Shane Claiborne's vision is "to speak the truth in love. There are a lot of people speaking the truth with no love, and there are a lot of people talking about love without much truth. And let's not get stuck in guilt...We are all bound up in the filthy system, and if you find yourself particularly bound, take courage, as you will then have more grace as you liberate others." He lives in a community of radical simplicity in Philadelphia, lives with apparently no income (his occupation is "lover"), does theological activism (dumped cash on Wall Street as a jubilee, sat with squatters threatened with eviction, gets arrested...), and lives among and with the urban poor. But the really amazing thing is that he's not an asshole. If he decides to stay the course as a national player, he brings a Jeremiah-style prophetic love and passion to us. His live is bizarrely countercultural, but his message implicates and includes everyone - he doesn't call us to live like him, but to live like Jesus, in our own way. It's beautiful, the way he seems to just read the Bible and then do what it says. "Sell all that you have and follow me." He says, "OK."
I'm reading between the lines of his book and website, but it seems to me that the Simple Way is largely driven by his charisma, and other community members have come and gone. Extreme countercultural life, in the absence of a supportive structure like an order, is difficult to make sustainable. It's also difficult to incorporate people who are married, over age 30, in need of good health insurance, parents...and difficult to retain your 20-year-olds who age into any of those categories. And I'm not even considering whatever life is like after age 40, being the myopic 33-year-old that I am (just be glad I'm not messianic about being 33).
I resonate with Claiborne in part because I was one of the radical, sacrifice-for-Jesus, downwardly mobile, near-vegetarian (exceptions made for fried ghetto delicacies), communal-living, evangelical leftist true believers. A Campolo sycophant (tamed in recent years to a more manageable 'aficianado'). I lived in community in North Philly for two summers, then created a community in South Mpls during college (it lasted about ten years after my tenure), then lived in Esther House for five years during graduate school. Esther House (tee hee, this article refers to me as Mrs. Paris) was an unaffiliated, unfunded, non-nonprofit collection of women committed to "love Jesus, each other, and our neighbors with abandon." We shared money, stuff, lives, rooms, and ministry in an intensely poor ghetto of D.C. - I ended up writing my dissertation about the forces that shaped the area into a ghetto. Later I married an urban ministry guy, moved into his intentional community, but that lasted only 60 days. The marriage continues, thankfully, but sans intentional community living.
Claiborne doesn't judge the social group of which I am now a part, but I used to judge us harshly: suburban, minivan-driving (really, shouldn't I just let that go already?), insured, Roth-IRA contributing breeders. That isn't my only self, however. I spent 13 years, more or less, in inner-city life and ministry (18-31) - just moved to the burbs two years ago.
Marriage helps stabilize society, and correspondingly, married life itself is much more stable than single life. Claiborne's life is much more destabilizing of society - pointing out injustices, presenting alternative ways of life, and unstable /flexible - seems that he can leave the house, sleep outside, travel, and get meals without negotiating it all with a spouse and kids. For me, simply leaving my house involves, at the very least, negotiating substitute childcare. At most, it involves packing my backpack and their diaper bag, dressing all three of us, buckling them in the car, folding up the stroller...you get the picture. And we have to get back home for naps. Nothing is simple; absolutely nothing.
It may be that devoted Christian 'stable' people can be the yin to Claiborne's yang. Nonradicals can be mindful of consumption, tithing, and occasional forays into activism and the like. We also can be be radical in our parenting and marriages. For a man, simply staying married and living with his children is radical - only 60% of American men do it. That sounds lame, tho. I'm not radical for loving those who love me (husband and children). If that becomes countercultural, it's only a sign of how bad things are in the culture, not how good we are.
For me, it's radical (going to the root of things) to attend deeply to my soul, my grief, my husband, and my babies. I rarely slow down, and I very much have the impulse to shove aside the few for the sake of saving the masses. My responsibility is to care intensively for three people -- two boys for the next twenty years, and my husband for the rest of our lives -- knowing that this kind of love is the very thing every one of those urban kids needs. I knew that, by choosing marriage and children, I was choosing against the kind of urban radialicsm lived at The Simple Way. Even though James and I, when first married, continued in urban life and ministry, it was different, if only because we needed to take more care for personal safety, knowing that it was not only one life we risked running wild through urban streets trying to save people, but two others - the spouse and the marriage...I shouldn't make the 'I'm still radical' argument - the point is not to be radical, but to be real.
I need to stop writing now, but I haven't reached a conclusion or finished either of the points I just made. Claiborne triggers all the radical passion that made me hate my suburban parents and move to the inner city, a perfect location from which to berate them while they paid my college tuition and my rent. That manifestation of my self may have have some maturity challenges, but it was a fantastic way to live.
10 Comments:
-
Hey Jenell -
I am reading this with great interest ... looking forward to your conclusions.
Much Love-
Tara -
I think this is very interesting. Life is all about phases. When we are young, I think it is too easy to berate and belittle the "other" (read here: phases which we haven't reached yet). It is very easy to be snide to those who aren't living "our lifestyle"; but the fact is, while we are true to ourselves, this does not necessarily mean that we will continue to live as we always have. Or that this, in itself, is bad.
As my grandma likes to say, "Been there, done that". I love it when she says that, because it reminds me that my life and experiences ensuing will continue to change.
Thanks for the great post. I, too, look forward to the conclusion of these thoughts. It is definitely something that has been on my mind the last few years.By
A. Borealis, at 2:49 PM
-
It's very important, however, that we not 'despise those who are young', trivilizing their choices by suggesting that their discipleship is somehow easier or more possible by virtue of age. Especially with regards to simplicity and serving the poor, it's too easy to say that only the young can live that way - that's really just self-justifying argument (A.Borealis isn't making this argument, I realize, but brought it to mind). As a professor of young adults, I see that few of them live counterculturally or pursue 'radical' discipleship. The lures of comfort, consumerism, and security loom large for 18-year-olds, too. We must listen to the young, learn from them, and remember that our own youth is still part of us.
-
I love this, and a few years ago, I would be very judgmental of me right now. Sometimes I still feel guily about having an apartment all to myself with real furniture with no needy individuals sleeping on the couch.
There are parts that I miss about the way I used to live, and parts that I know now were incredibly unhealthy. I have no conclusions either, so let me know if you come up with some.
ChristyBy
, at 5:40 PM
-
I agree! The allure of The Lie is very strong, no matter what age we are. Everyone should be encouraged to live intentionally, no matter our stage in life.
I think that 'intentional' is the key word. While there are more responsibilities with marriage & family or full-time jobs and home ownership, there is still plenty of room to live strategically - and even get a little radical within our own little realm. It may look different for someone who is 73 vs. 17, but that seems to be a natural consequence of the circle of life.
Good conversation!By
A. Borealis, at 5:41 PM
-
I think a. borealis hit the nail on the preverbial head with the word "intentional" if we are to be Followers of Jesus, instead of simply Believers.
Living radically as a suburban stay home mom actually leaves me feeling pretty lonely at times. I long for a community of others with whom I can live intentionally. I know that community wouldn't look like Shane Claiborne's. Which begs the question, What would it look like anyway?
I'm working on it...and so is God, in the hearts and minds of several people I know. There are lots of questions, no clear answers. But at least we beginning to ask them outloud. -
someone gave me a tape of shaine's when i moved to dc, and i listened to it over and over again until i wore it out. truly, the tape wrecked me, as i had never really thought about any of the things he was talking about before. in my evangelical bubble with the fundamentalist bent, where peace making or living with the poor was not considered a christian value, i was never faced with ideas about "intentional living" or "radical christianity". on my own, i lived simply without tv, radio or bed in a one room apt and my life was deeply intertwined with illegal immigrants and homeless friends. i was almost always happy though poor and forged my own way of being radical with few possessions even though most of the christians around me thought i was mostly irresponsible for not having a more stable existence.
i gave that all up to get married and have children and actually know where the rent was coming from, only to discover shaine claiborne and feel like i had made the worst choice for my life ever.
i don't know if i ever fully recovered from that tape, but i understand now (after years of deep, deep regret for not being able to conceptualize earlier the kind of life he suggests) that it is radical in some small way to be completely present with your children, to refuse to schedule them 24/7, to stay home and be involved in neighborhood and local community--maybe not everywhere in the us, but certainly in dc where the pressure to achieve and dominate your area of expertise is palpable.
that doesn't make me feel much better, but it's something. i figure the next best thing would be to feed and house the shaine claiborne's as they are passing through and to fill the hearts of other young radical souls with love and their pockets with cash.
i would be much happier if i thought i was raising radical children, but so far, my wild things don't understand why we don't have a tv, why we are never buying an suv and always walk everywhere and why racial slurs and silly denigrating rhymes they learn at their school are not acceptable. i guess i have my work cut out for me.By
, at 9:04 AM
-
Great post. I'm with jen lemen, wondering how does one raise kids to be radical in a "gimme" environment. Almost every day, they come home with one more "want" - mp3 players, gameboys, you name it. We try to live simply, and though we're comfortable in a suburban home, there are times when it feels radical just to say no to the latest gadget and the endless list of activities. Sometimes I just want to run away to a place where they'd be surrounded by kids with less than them instead of more.
Have you seen the new magazine Geez? www.geezmagazine.org It's by a couple of radicals similar to Claiborne trying to challenge people to live out their faith in a more tangible and justice-oriented way. (I had a short piece published in their last edition about giving up some of the comforts of suburbia.) -
OK, I'm dying to post a comment here, but it'll have to wait until Monday -- hope that's not too late! The discussion is great!
By
Maria Kenney, at 12:05 AM
-
I like what Jen said, "it is radical in some small way to be completely present with your children, to refuse to schedule them 24/7, to stay home and be involved in neighborhood and local community."
I don't think it is some small way at all, particularly if you know it is what God has called you to do and be. But, it is exactly what causes me to feel lonely (looney?!) at times. Sometimes I feel like even my evangelical friends think I'm a little too - what? Strict? Literal? I doubt they would use the word radical in the sense that Claiborne is radical. I feel alone when I run up against blank stares and questions like, "Why are you saying no to THAT?" from friends.
Really listening for Jesus and then following Him in even the simplest of ways can and should lead us into a whole different existence.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
This book rocked, is still rocking, and might continue to rock for some time, my world. I need to write about it at length.
Possible topics for me:
Why marriage de-radicalizes your life.
Who am I, and what am I supposed to be doing with my life?
Inner-city communal life was not sustainable for me. Is it for anyone?
See...babies are crying in their cribs and I can hear them through the vent.
No more radical thoughts for today.
3 Comments:
-
I'm looking forward to the "de-radicalization of marriage" post. Sounds intriguing.
-
I think you meant the "de-radicalization of life" because of marriage. I know I would be making different choices right now if I didn't have children. I don't resent the fact that I need to make choices with the best interests of our WHOLE family (not just the girls) in mind, but I sure wish I could dive into things that don't seem feasible right now.
I'm getting better at looking beyond the boxes though. I have been challenged to figure out ways to include my children and expose them to worldview shaping experiences. This has become one of the leading threads of our family's story. Stay tuned!
My life was wrecked by Irresistable Revolution too. -
Hmmm…interesting. I have not read Shane Claiborne, and so I am immensely unqualified to post, but I’m feeling like I have to say something about marriage.
A servant of Christ who remains single is capable of much radical usefulness! Praise God for folks who are called to such a life.
But a God-honoring biblically patterned marriage is huge as well…especially in today’s (American) culture. When a boy leaves his mommy, forsaking his toys and former pleasures, replacing them with a sacrificial love for his wife (and children, if he has so been blessed) giving them priority, and they become his new source of purpose, pleasure and fulfillment, he becomes a man. Sadly, that kind of man is an unusual creature today. Commonly, manhood is equated with functions that even dogs are capable of, but biblical manhood, if done right should paint a picture that helps us understand Christ’s relationship to the church. That’s pretty radical…considering our culture; don’t you think?
Wives and mothers, I can barely stay on top of learning lessons in my own life, but I think your sacrifices, though many, are too often taken for granted.
Hats off to each individual who obeys God’s call to lay down their lives and serve His purposes, whether single, or married.By
Craver VII, at 11:03 AM
This is a massive volume compiling what is known about sexuality in relationships, based on primary research. The chapter on homosexuality is very useful, because it describes what is known and not known about sex in same-sex relationships. There are nine studies, from the mid-1970s to present, that have questioned gay and lesbian couples (not individuals) about sex in their relationships. Almost all are heavily white, urban, young, and relatively well educated. No study is representative of the general US population.
Judith Butler's address, "Global Violence, Sexual Politics" explores the question of what constitutes a grievable life. Which individuals are really included in society, whose deaths or tragedies are considered grievable, and which are extraneous? Though much of queer studies would seem to be radically individualistic (creating one's own gender, for example), she says both desire and grief reveal that we are connected to each other deeply...but to which others do we acknowledge our connections?
Two quotes that raises questions for Christians as they approach sexuality issues:
"Emanuel Levinas has taught us, wisely, that the question we pose to the Other is simple and unanswerable: 'who are you?' The violent response is the one which does not ask, and does not seek to know. It wants to shore up what it knows, to expunge what threatens it with not-knowing, what forces it to reconsider the presuppositions of its world, their contingency, their malleability. The non-violent response lives with its unknowingness about the Other, in the face of the Other, since sustaining the bond that the question opens is finally more valuable than knowing in advance what holds us in common, as if we already have all the resources we need to know what defines the human, what its future life might be." (210)
Can we know Jesus, and embody the Gospel, and yet honor the mystery of otherness? Does life with Jesus raise possibilities, or close them down? And, related, could Christian communities be places of new possible lives and fresh identities and unexpected love and freedom (or must they be places of predictability, already knowing, and moralistic repression)?
"Although some people have asked me what is finally teh use of simply increasing possibilities for gender, I would suggest that possibility is not a luxury: it is as crucial as bread. I think we should not underestimate what the thought of the possible does for those for whom the very issue of survival is most urgent. If the answer to the question, is life possible, is yes, that is surely something. It cannot be taken for granted." (208)
Does anyone know how I could crop a photo into a circle shape? Ultimately, I want to print out a piece of paper that has a photo in a circle shape. I can't crop it like that with picasa...and I just have basic xp software.
6 Comments:
-
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
-
Gimp is a really neat, advanced freeware program for editing photos. I haven't checked whether you can crop in a circle, but it has SO many other options. I have a hunch that it's possible.
-
Thanks! I'll check it out.
-
I would probably print out the photo in a regular shape and then go to Michael's and buy a circle cropper from the scrapbooking section.
-
I'd be happy to do it for you, if you want. It would take me about 30 seconds in Photoshop.
-
I think Kira's low-tech advice is probably the easiest. Remember cutting things out with scissors...apparently I had forgotten!
Monday, May 01, 2006
Those were the thoughts that demanded expression for now. I have years of reading and thinking ahead of me on sexuality. It's the first topic I've worked on where my thoughts seem totally disconnected from reality - I feel hopeless as soon as I consider application in church or Christian settings. Even racism seemed more hopeful. The Lord, via people at my church, offered me a few summer opportunities to put ideas about sexuality into practice, so I'll give it a try and see what happens.
On a lighter note, an alphabet of my recent googles:
Ace fans
Backwash in dishwasher
Chromosomal hygroma
Download "Breathe" (that's embarrassing)
Escape as through the fire
Fair trade clothing
Genessee diary raisin
hank hannegraf
I pick up this stick for the glory of God
j.jill
Kathryn Prill wedding
lawn aerator
Metropolitan community church
Ninety minutes in heaven
O what would you care if I just go bare
Peters brothers Queen
question mark
race demographics for america
substitute flour for cake flour
travel with frozen breastmilk
university of the poor
votes for bush kerry election
waodani ethnography
x,y,z none
What have you googled recently that starts with your name's first letter (other than your own name)?
5 Comments:
-
you were at my wedding - whatchu looking for? :) - kpg
By
, at 10:05 AM
-
I liked it so much, I hoped it would be happening again.
Truthfully, that google was from March 3, when I was trying to figure out where it would be held. -
"how to make a poncho" :-) And my hunt was successful, because my three daughters and I all have ponchos now :-)
-
Target
The Legacy Center
The Loft literary center
The Simple Way
The Way of St. Benedict
Things could kill finches
Turbo Tax
I had to include the whole list...too many good ones! -
greek to english translator.
(we were trying to the monk's chant from monty python and the holy grail)
8 Comments:
Beautiful post. Just the other day, I was rearranging the furniture in my living room and realized that I can now, for the first time in 10 years, put breakable stuff on low shelves. It made me a little sad. But at the same time, it made me happy. I LOVE the stage the girls are at now, and I LOVE that each new stage brings new surprises.
You're right - nothing makes us realize the beauty of what we have right now more than having lost someone. I don't think I revelled in the oldest 2 girls' stages quite as much as I did in the youngest one, who came after a stillbirth and a miscarriage.
By
Heather, at 11:18 PM
so lovely. thanks
By
juniper68, at 11:46 PM
That was very beautiful, Jenell.
I need very much to hear this as too often as a habit of mind I live in the past, in lost culs-de-sac of what-could-have-beens, in chilhood trauma, in busted pasts. I find myself clutching to old pain as if it means something; it's hard to let go of it and of protective fantasies. It can be hard to be really here, now. (Well, and also I am lazy.)
Blessings,
Troy
By
Troy, at 12:19 PM
I rarely ruminate, regret, or even reminisce about the past. Instead, I live in the future. While I cook, clean, or even converse, my mind is often days or years ahead. I plan meals, grocery lists, articles, books, personal improvement...and miss the present. There's a right relationship to the past and to the future, but the life that really is life is here in the now.
By
Jenell, at 12:22 PM
Lovely, Jenell. Thank you.
By
Hugo, at 4:33 PM
This is a great reminder for me, as my little girl turns 10 months old. Where is that sweet little scrunched-up thing that I held in my hands, and who now takes up both arms and more? I need to capture every day for the gift that it is. Easier said than done, but maybe we can give it a try.
By
Maria Kenney, at 12:15 AM
The number one lesson of motherhood for me has been learning how to let go. I am always letting go...no matter what age they are. To love openly and freely enough to let them go and be who they are in this moment is God's invitation to me and my continuing place of growth.
]
Grace and peace to you.
By
Jan, at 11:04 AM
I struggle with wishing away MJ's baby and toddler years. I've had a toddler in my life for 9 years now and there is part of me that can't wait to move on to the next stage. But then I realize that when Maddie is 4, Emily will be 12 and I'll have missed the precious last days of Em's little girl life. It's a tenuous balance and I don't have it down yet.
By
carla, at 11:23 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home