Blog

Sandbags in the Stream

Sometimes, I just don’t feel like writing. Or blogging. Or emailing. Or even putting pen to paper to write on the shopping list.

I don’t care for the term “writer’s block.” I think it’s inaccurate. It makes it sound like some invisible force, descending on me with some nefarious plan to keep me from setting down my thoughts. I know the problem is with me, something internal, some way I am keeping myself from letting go.

This morning, to my delight, I discovered this post in my Twitter feed. To sum up for people who are too lazy (or too uninterested) to read the whole thing, writer Melissa Donovan calls writer’s block a symptom, not the problem. She lists five common underlying causes: physical ailments, stress and distractions, lazy days, a desire to do anything else, and procrastination.

I like this list, I would add two more:

1. Busyness syndrome. I don’t necessarily mean being so busy one doesn’t have time to write; that’s not a cause of writer’s block. I mean having so much else to do that I’ve spent the better part of my creative energy on something else. It isn’t that I don’t have time, it’s that by the time I’ve finished with all my other tasks, I’m tired, cranky, and longing for a cup of cocoa and a cheesy sitcom. This problem isn’t limited to writing. When I’m suffering, I don’t even feel creative enough to make dinner. Last night my burn-out reached fever pitch and I made my husband cook pasta. With leftover sauce from the freezer. Yep, I couldn’t even muster enough mental energy to boil penne.

2. Fear. I know this one all too well. I really need to learn to stop reading negative blog posts about creative horror stories. You know, the ones about how it took someone ten years to publish anything (did it occur to them they might have just been sucky writers, not unlucky or approaching it the wrong way?). Or the ones about how you need to take these Ten Steps to Being the Perfect Writer or else. Or else what? I won’t get published? Maybe, but what if that’s not my goal? When I think too far ahead, I frighten myself. I start thinking that I’m not good enough now, I won’t be good enough then, and what ever shall I do because my whole life is flashing by and I haven’t done anything meaningful and now I’m even thinking in run-on sentences which is never a good sign…You get the picture. That’s the point when my own fear of failure takes over.

Ms Donovan, who is a far superior writer, gives some practical advice for handling the causes of writer’s block. I, not being she, have no suggestions. I usually just have to deal with things as they come up. A lot of prayer helps. At the moment, I’m unwinding the knots in my brain by drinking tea and wishing I had a croissant to go with it. Later, I’m going to spend some quality time with my daughter—no electronics, just the two of us. We’ll probably read some books, do some schoolwork, and play some games. Sounds like the perfect cure for almost everything on the list.

Religious Conservatives: Why the Fear of Women?

Women

I read this article yesterday on religious extremists and their view of women. In the post, Dr. Peggy Drexler details some of the horrific ways women have been treated at the hands of ultra-conservative men. Women have been viciously attacked, being perceived as a threat to male spiritual discipline. We typically (and at least in the physical sense, rightly) associate these attacks with places in the Middle East.

This quote from Dr. Drexler stood out to me:

As I watched, I wondered: What is it about women that the men of deeply conservative religions find so threatening?

What, indeed?

Dr. Drexler explains it this way, and I think she’s right:

Find a place where men oppress women, and you’ll hear the same justification: we’re doing it for their own protection. It’s not protection. It’s projection.

The logic: My sexual urges take me away from a focus on God. Women cause me to have those urges. The obvious solution is to beat them down, cover them up, and lock them away. What I can’t see won’t tempt me.

The same underlying attitudes which lead to brutal victimization of women can be found in conservative Christian circles here in the U. S. It’s just another manifestation of the old Madonna-Whore Complex. Men have reduced women to a choice between two opposite, and equally objectifying, alternatives. In fact, we have become the embodiment of both simultaneously. We are vile temptresses, luring men to sinful depths, in need of strong husbands to protect us and lead us down the path to righteousness. Obviously, we have no idea the effect we are having on them!

Strangely enough, a lot of men seem to want it both ways. They want their wives and girlfriends to act like the Madonna (at least in public). But they want the Whore, too, in the form of media (with its unrealistic vision of women and our bodies). Separating and reducing enables men to continue to blame women and prevents them from uderstanding that women are much more complex than either of the artificially created, two-dimensional caricatures.

It also keeps them from having to face what it is about women that is so terrifying to them.

Not all men are like this. I believe that there are many men who simply have never questioned the way they were raised or taught. They have never thought about whether what they’ve heard at church fits with reality at all. I have great hope for those men. It’s the ones who insist that they “love and respect” women while continuing to lord it over us, assuming authority they do not have.

Dr. Drexler’s summary says it all for me:

Why is female sexuality and empowerment so deeply threatening to the conservative religious cultures? What would happen to those cultures if women were free to make their own sexual choices, and exercise their own personal power? Would free, healthy, sexual, productive women bring down a society or dramatically strengthen it?

How can we make positive changes that liberate women from the Madonna-Whore Complex?

Disciplining the Disciples

Discipline, Morality, Relationships, Sin

Church discipline has been a big topic in the last week or so, at least in the blog circles I read. I thought it was time I pitched my own tent on the battlefield.

I won’t mention any names this time (even though we all know which church sparked the conversation). I will say that I was appalled at the disciplinary contract. I wasn’t bothered by the idea of signing a contract. On the contrary, I think that can be a good thing, when it’s mutually agreed on (rather than forced) and has specific goals in mind. While I understand that there is nothing in the Bible about that type of contract, there is precedent. People made covenants with one another all the time, agreements which were typically mutually beneficial.

I’m also not against asking someone to leave who is consistently dragging down the church, blocking its mission, or who is predatory in word and deed. It’s not about simply banishing “unrepentant” people, it’s about what it’s doing to the health of the church. In my experience, it’s rarely necessary to bar someone from the church. People who refuse to acknowledge their problems typically don’t stay after they’ve been confronted. It’s the ones who insist on taking others down with them who create the most drama.

There is nothing wrong with using the Bible to understand spiritual discipline. But when it’s misused, there’s trouble. We are fortunate that the Bible tells us that we can lovingly correct someone who has done wrong. Unfortunately, it doesn’t spell out the specifics for each circumstance. We have to do that part on our own. I agree that Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 are good places to start for a healthy overall approach to dealing with sin within the church. All they do, however, is give a framework. How we carry it out is up to us, and we need to be sure that what we’re doing has the purpose of healing, not shaming.

The problem I had with the contract that’s been circulated on the ‘net was its excessive demands, nebulous action points, and lack of time frame or end goals. The terms and conditions were confusing at best. There was far too much potential for the contract to become weaponized. As far as I could tell, without any real, measurable goals, the process could have been dragged out indefinitely by the elders. If their stated result was to restore the individual to full spiritual health, that was probably not the best way to handle it.

I look at spiritual restoration as being similar to physical rehabilitation. (Before anyone gets all twisted up about whether or not that’s “Biblical,” it’s no more or less “Biblical” than the contract in question.) When a person has been injured or ill, there are always specific goals in mind. Sure, the end point may be for the person to return to work or independent living, but that’s too broad a goal at the start. That’s a great thing to aim for after smaller steps have been taken. The goals are manageable, have a specific time frame, and never have in mind the idea of reminding the person of what they can’t yet do. I believe spiritual healing when sin has been uncovered (in whatever way) can follow the same pattern.

When we find ourselves needing to discipline those under our spiritual direction (and this applies to people in lay ministry, not just pastors and elders), there are key parts of the process:

1. Does the person understand and believe that he or she has done something wrong? If so, then discipline can begin. If not, then there are further actions as described in Matthew 18. I do think we’re misinterpreting the Scripture if we think it means to shun someone. Revoking member privileges and not allowing the person to continue to serve can happen first.

2. Is this a pattern you’ve seen before in this person? We do need to give others the benefit of the doubt. Unless it’s something illegal, there is no reason to assume it’s a pattern unless it’s happened before on your watch. This was one of my problems with the contract I mentioned. There was an underlying assumption that the person had habitually engaged in the same sin. That’s a thinly veiled attempt at shaming. Unless the person says it’s a habit, or unless there is a history of discipline over the same issue, assume nothing. It doesn’t foster healthy reconciliation.

3. The consequences should fit the sin. I don’t mean in terms of ranking sins according to how bad they are. I mean that the consequences should not be excessive and that they should make sense. We use this technique on our kids. We don’t just give them a time out or extra chores for every offense. That wouldn’t even make sense. The consequences of sin should not be for the purpose of punishment but for correction.

4. There should be measurable goals. What do you want to see accomplished as a result of the discipline? The end result may be for the person to regain full membership status and the same role as before, but that’s both too far out and too unfocused. If you have specific things in mind you want to see happen, or a level of accountability, then spell it out clearly and define the parameters. This is the step that should not just be meted out by the elders or the leadership or whomever. If the person under discipline is agreeing to the process, then he or she can be part of the solution. Again, we sometimes do this with our kids. They have ownership of their action steps and are usually more compliant.

5. There should be a clear time frame. The other big problem I had with the contract was that there was no end point. There was no time limit on the action steps. They could be carried out or enforced indefinitely. That’s not helpful because it never allows the person to achieve full spiritual health. It can’t operate on an “I’ll know it when I see it” basis. People get far too emotionally involved to be objective. Again, giving someone the benefit of the doubt will help here. If it becomes a pattern, then there is always room to revise. There should be dates by which steps will be completed, and an evaluation of their success by all parties involved.

6. Shaming or humiliation should never be part of the process. If your goal is restoration, then shame should not be part of the equation. There is absolutely no Scripture that encourages making someone feel humiliated, even when there is a need to confront the person in a wider circle. We all remember The Scarlet Letter, right? Right.

7. When there is no chance of reconciliation, there are two options: Let them go or ask them to leave. Sometimes, unrepentant people will leave. I’ve seen it happen. I have never, ever been to a church that chose to a) shun the person who left; b) ask members to refrain from friendship with the person; c) pursued them angrily, demanding that they finish what they started; or d) tell the entire membership what happened. People who choose to leave, leave. They may be given over to God, with the hope that they will eventually repent. It’s different if someone refuses to be corrected and insists on staying put. It’s healthy and appropriate to ask that person to leave, especially if he or she is creating tension. It can be healthy to continue to work with the person, even if they don’t believe they were wrong, if that is what the leadership chooses to do. I’ve seen that happen, and it can result in healing and deeper relationships. (In that case, it was a matter of doctrine, and it opened up great conversation.)

In all things, the goal should be to handle things with love and not anger. If someone in leadership cannot be objective, that person should not be responsible for discipline. I imagine that’s part of what got in the way in the Contract from Heck. (Of course, I think that church has other issues, but that’s another matter.) If we stop treating people like conflicts waiting to happen and see them more as children of God, we will be able to handle sticky matters in a healthy way.

Being a Woman Would Be Boring!

Women

I’m having a Proud Mom moment, and I had to share.

S and I have been working on her handwriting. In each chapter, there is a concept (animals, foods, shapes). There are various activities designed to give the student a chance to practice writing the words:

We’re working on career words. Her book shows pictures of different people doing their jobs—doctor, nurse, dentist, teacher, farmer, pilot, firefighter, police officer, barber, grocer, construction worker, chef, and artist. S and I noticed that almost none of the pictures show women. In fact, the only jobs it shows being done by women are the nurse, the teacher, and the dentist. Every other picture shows a man doing the job.

We’ve been talking about it, and how even though the pictures don’t show women, women can do all of those jobs. The other day, she seemed rather fed up with seeing only pictures of men. Our conversation went like this:

S: It’s dumb that they only show men.

Me: Why is that?

S: Women can do those jobs too. Women can do anything they want.

Me: Yes, they can. We’ve been talking about that. Why do you think it’s important?

S: Because if those [nurse, teacher, and dentist] were really our only choices, that would be boring!

Me: You’re right, it would be.

S [scornfully]: This book must have been written by a man.

I like to hope that I’m doing a good job with S, making sure she knows that her options aren’t limited. It’s funny, I’m trying to teach her that she can be a strong, independent woman, when I have fallen into a fairly traditional role. I’ve been a stay-at-home mom for over eight years, and my two degrees are in…nursing and education. But I chose this life, I wasn’t forced into it. My husband would have been just as happy to be married to me if I’d been a doctor and he’d been a stay-at-home dad, or if we’d both been police officers. He didn’t marry me because I was prepared to be his “little woman.”

Bear with me, this may seem unrelated, but it’s not. The other night, one of our church elders came to see us about some business. (Relax, it was all good. It wasn’t one of those kinds of meetings.) During part of the conversation, he praised me for valuing our kids and staying home with them. But he also praised women who hold jobs outside the home, speaking blessings over their work. He’s a fairly traditional guy, but the whole time the three of us were talking, I never once felt as though he didn’t care what I was saying. He directed specific questions to each of us, but only in the sense that each of us has areas of expertise. As a woman, a mother, and a person of faith, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the respect we received.

This is the way we expect our son to behave. This is the way we expect our daughter to be treated. So far, I think we’re on the right track.

Let the Dead Bury the Dead

Odds 'n' Ends

I was going to stay away from all things Penn State and Joe Paterno. I’m not that into football, and I’m not interested in having endless discussions about what went down and what it all means and who is really to blame. But after reading a series of ranty blog posts, I’m going to have my two cents.

I think we (the public) need to lay our JoePa bashing to rest. The man has died; whatever he did, or failed to do, cannot be undone or restored. There is no use in continuing to hash out what we think went wrong.

It’s just as useless to try to defend him.

It’s cowardly to hide behind a dead man. Blaming him separates us from the very real people who are still alive. It keeps us from seeing him as a human being with a family who loved him. It absolves us from having to deal with the actual perpetrator of the crime, because we know we can’t. It stops us from seeing the rest of the people in that grisly chain of command, people who are just as culpable.

I’ve noticed that the vast majority of blog posts come from people who have never known any of these people personally. It’s a lot of rhetoric about “speaking out” for victims. It’s a lot of sounding defensive. And, sickeningly, it’s done in the name of Christ. But none of it comes the victims’ families. None.

You want to hate Penn State or its football team? You want to demand that the (living) people responsible get what’s due? Okay. Fine. You want to rail against the evils of child abuse? Even better. But don’t speak ill of the dead and claim that it’s because you’re a follower of Christ. Actually be a follower of Christ, get off your computer, and do something if it wrecks you that much.

Just don’t put yourself in charge of judgment of the dead.

Provoketive: Driscoll Fail

Provoketive

My post, out today, is on the ways Mark Driscoll gets it right.

I wanted to avoid giving Mark Driscoll any further press. I wanted to avoid reading, writing, or thinking any more about this man and what he has to say. Most of all, I wanted to avoid using the words, “Mark Driscoll” and “right” in the same sentence.

Darn. [read more]

That’s all well and good, except that Driscoll’s church, Mars Hill, had an epic fail which you can read about here (Part 1) and here (Part 2). You should also read the follow-up guest post. Several other people have weighed in on the issue, including Jonathan Fitzgerald, Dianna Anderson, Sarah Moon, and Bob Cargill. These people are more articulate than I. So instead of writing about this myself, I urge you to read about it for yourselves.

(I will go on record saying that while I agree that discipline and correction are good, this was an abuse of power and not appropriate.)

Sandbags in the Stream

Religious Conservatives: Why the Fear of Women?

Disciplining the Disciples

Being a Woman Would Be Boring!

Let the Dead Bury the Dead

Provoketive: Driscoll Fail

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content