Voice of the Canyon

FAMOUS

2011-09-12T20:30:00.001-04:00

The river is famous to the fish.

The loud voice is famous to silence,
which knew it would inherit the earth
before anybody said so.

The cat sleeping on the fence is famous to the birds
watching him from the birdhouse.

The tear is famous, briefly, to the cheek.

The idea you carry close to your bosom
is famous to your bosom.

The boot is famous to the earth,
more famous than the dress shoe,
which is famous only to floors.

The bent photograph is famous to the one who carries it
and not at all famous to the one who is pictured.

I want to be famous to shuffling men
who smile while crossing streets,
sticky children in grocery lines,
famous as the one who smiled back.

I want to be famous in the way a pulley is famous,
or a buttonhole, not because it did anything spectacular,
but because it never forgot what it could do.

---Naomi Shihab Nye

Mountain Dreamer Speaks

2011-03-01T09:47:00.002-05:00

It doesn't interest me what you do for living. I want to know what you ache or, and if you dare to dream of meeting your heart's longing.

It doesn't interest me how old you are. I want to know if you will risk looking like a fool for love, for your dream, for the adventure of being alive.

It doesn't interest me what planets are squaring your moon. I want to know if you have touched the center of your own sorrow, if you have been opened by life's betrayals or have become shriveled and closed from fear of further pain. I want to know if you can sit with pain, mine or your own, without moving to hide it or fade it or fix it. I want to know if you can be with JOY, mine or your own; if you can dance with wildness and let the ecstasy fill you to the tips of your fingers and toes without cautioning us to be careful, be realistic or to remember the limitations of being human.

It doesn't interest me if the story you are telling me is true. I want to know if you can disappoint another to be true to yourself; if you can bear the accusation of betrayal and not betray your own soul. I want know if you can be faithful and therefore be trustworthy. I want to know if you can see beauty even when it is not pretty everyday, and if you can source your life on the edge of the lake and shout to the silver of the moon.

It doesn't interest me to know where you live of how much money you have. I want to know if you can get up after a night of grief and despair, weary and bruised to the bone and do what needs to be done for the children.

It doesn't interest me who you know or how you came to be here. I want to know if you will stand in the center of the fire with me and not shrink back.

It doesn't interest me where or what or with whom you have studied. I want to know what sustains you from the inside when all else falls away. I want to know if you can be alone with yourself and if you truly like the company you keep in the empty moments.

- Oriah, Mountain Dreamer, Indian Elder

Craigslist says it won't resume adult services advertising

2010-09-20T20:00:00.001-04:00

By Jordan Steffen, Los Angeles Times

September 16, 2010

Craigslist has no plans to bring back the controversial adult services category that was on its classified advertising website, a company official told Congress on Wednesday.

Craigslist placed a block on the section earlier this month after law enforcement officials and human rights groups accused it of not properly monitoring the category and removing ads for prostitution and child trafficking.

William Clinton Powell, director of customer service and law enforcement relations for Craigslist, made the statement during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on minors caught up in sex trafficking.

Get a daily snapshot of market numbers and trends, delivered right to your mobile phone. Text BUSINESS to 52669.

Adult advertisements posted on Craigslist received three times more responses than those on any other online service, Deborah Richardson, chief program officer for the Women's Funding Network, said before the committee.

In the last six months, there has been a steep increase in the number of U.S. adolescent girls advertised for commercial sex on the Internet, Richardson said. Linda Smith, a former congresswoman who now heads the nonprofit Shared Hope group that provides rehabilitation for women and children involved in sex trafficking, said, "I have not had a girl that wasn't marketed online, and most of them were on Craigslist."

At least 100,000 children in the United States are involved in commercial sex every year and the average age at which girls enter prostitution is 13, Smith said.

Connecticut Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal, who led an effort to persuade Craigslist to drop the section, said Wednesday he was pleased by the announcement it would not be resumed, but asked the company for "more effective and aggressive screening to fight prostitution ads, including swift removal of suspect ads flagged by the public."

Ernie Allen, chief executive of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said removing the category was a "positive and productive" step. But he said more must be done.

"The goal is to destroy the business model for those who sell children for sex on the Internet," Allen said.

jsteffen@tribune.com

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

Child Prostitution on Craigslist

2010-08-12T11:52:00.002-04:00

Here is an informative video about the "adult services" section on Craigslist. According to this CNN report, Craigslist has become the fastest, easiest, and safest way to sell children for sex; so much say that "Craigslist is like the Wal-Mart of online sex trafficking."

You can read more here.

International Justice Mission

2010-07-25T21:47:00.004-04:00

One of the organizations we support is the International Justice Mission. Here is an excerpt from their Summer 2010 Quarterly Spotlight, which gives a glimpse of what they do.

The case of Matias* is a good example of the obstacles we face in supporting the Bolivian public justice system. Matias was 10 years old in 2008 when a 30-year-old man who cut his hair and attended his church invited him to his apartment for tea and then violently sexually assaulted him.

Matias' impoverished family was desperate for justice. His father, Juan, remembers: "I didn't have any money to pay [a lawyer]. . . . But if I didn't go forward with his case, this man was going to continue" abusing children.

My team had the privilege of representing Matias in court. Preparing and getting his case to trial proved to be a tremendous - but, sadly familiar - battle. We had a clear case against his perpetrator, but faced many obstacles of a different sort.

Our first challenge was assmemblign the three "citizen judges" who play the role of a jury. In Bolivia, if a poor person manages to bring charges against the perpetrator of a crime, without an advocate, the justice process often ends here.

Here's why the process is so difficult: Court clerks must summon a dozen people so that three of them can be selected to serve as citizen judges. But these clerks receive no funding for their transportation to summon anyone, so they often can't or don't do their jobs. And many deeply impoverished Bolivians simply cannot miss a day of work to serve their duty even if they are summoned.

Over the course of 2009, the trial was scheduled, then postponed and transferred to another court over and over, as people summoned to serve as citizen judges failed to appear. With each delay, Matias and his parents grew more discouraged - but we urged them to continue with the case, and remained committed to persevere.

Finally, in January 2010, enough of the necessary people appeared - Vania, a member of our legal team, had gone to the courthouse the day before to lend the clerk her cell phone so he could make reminder calls. Three were selected to serve as citizen judges, and, after more than a year of delays, the trial could begin.

But the hurdles did not end - and the stakes grew higher. Our attempts to keep the case moving were thwarted repeatedly, as both citizen judges and the very overburdened government prosecutor - a Bolivian official our team supports in court - failed to appear for hearings.

Even with our determination, the trial stretched on into April, prolonging an already difficult process for Matias and increasing the chances that the entire process could get derailed.

Finally, as we neared the last hearing, the government prosecutor we were working with announced that she planned to reschedule - a decision that meant that the trial would not conclude before the end of the summer. We were dismayed. We prayed; we desperately tried to convince her to move forward.

Finally, with just one day to spare, the prosecutor committed to attend the hearing. After 17 months of advocacy, the trial concluded: The defendant was declared guilty and sentenced to 20 years. Matias had justice.

*The name of this IJM Client has been changed for his security.

This story is one of many that IJM helped write. Go here to learn more.

Perception of Beauty

2010-07-22T11:45:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, if someone had asked me what percentage of photographs in magazines were photo-shopped, I probably would have said "all of them." It certainly wouldn't have surprised me to find out that was true.

But, on a day-to-day basis, when my attention isn't being drawn to the subject, I sure find it easy to forget what the digitization of culture has done to my perception of beauty.

For more information on the impact of this type of imagery on young girls, click here.

Johann Hari: So that's OK then. It's fine to abuse young girls, as long as you're a great film director

2010-07-14T18:56:00.001-04:00

The Swiss government has admitted "national interests" may be a factor

So now we know. If you are a 44-year-old man, you can drug and anally rape a terrified 13-year-old girl as she sobs, says "No, no, no," and pleads for her asthma medication – all according to the victim's sworn testimony – and face no punishment at all. You just have to meet two criteria – (a) you have to run away and stay away for a few decades; and (b) you need to direct some good films. If you do, not only will you walk free, there will be a huge campaign to protect you from the "witch-hunt" and you will be lauded as a hero.

Roman Polanski admitted his crime before he ran away and, for years afterwards, he boasted from exile that every man wanted to do what he did. He chuckled to one interviewer in 1979: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see?

"But... f*****g, you see... and the young girls. Judges want to f**k young girls. Juries want to f**k young girls. Everyone wants to f**k young girls!"

But this is not enough, it seems, for the Swiss government to return him to the US to face trial. They have found a legalistic loophole that enables them to let him go – while admitting "national interests" may be a factor. This may be a reference to pressure from neighbouring France to free their citizen. As a Swiss citizen, I think I can say without being offensive, we all remember the bargains Swiss governments have made in the past to preserve their "national interests". This is in a long tradition of helping criminals and calling it Swiss hard-headedness.

The campaign to release Polanski has leeched into the open a slew of attitudes I thought were defeated a generation ago. Whoopi Goldberg said it wasn't "rape rape".

Others hinted darkly that she wasn't a virgin. So if a 13-year-old has been abused before, she's fair game for all future rapists? The French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levi, who led the campaign, said a little bit of child molestation isn't his problem when Great Art is at stake. He wrote: "Am I repulsed by what he got up to? His behaviour is not my business. I'm concerned about his movies. I like The Pianist and Rosemary's Baby."

That's worth saying again – this campaign was led by a man who thinks the drugging and raping of a child is "not my business", when compared to a film about Satan inseminating Mia Farrow.

The novelist Robert Harris, who is a friend of Polanski's, said: "It strikes me as disgusting treatment." He wasn't talking about the child-rape. He was talking about the attempt to punish the child-rape. He said Polanski was being subjected to a "lynch mob"? Where is this lynch mob? All I can see are people patiently suggesting the law should be enforced and he should be given a fair and open trial. This is the opposite of a lynching: it is sober justice.

Do these defenders of Polanski understand what they are saying? Harris has four children. If a great film director drugs and rapes them tomorrow, will he call the police, or will he say it would be "disgusting" to do so? Would he say the police and prosecutors trying to protect his children were a "lynch mob"? If the rapist ran off, would he say that after three decades on the run (boasting about his crime) he should walk free?

Now the campaign has succeeded. So congratulations to Whoopi and Bernard and Robert: an unrepentant, bragging child-rapist won't face his day in court, thanks in part to you. Have fun at the victory party. But you may want to leave your daughters at home.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-so-thats-ok-then-its-fine-to-abuse-young-girls-as-long-as-youre-a-great-film-director-2025067.html

Sexism: The Killer Elephant in the Room

2010-05-21T12:29:00.002-04:00

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-saving-philosophy/201005/sexism-the-killer-elephant-in-the-room

No one wants to read this essay. I surely did not look forward to writing it, but I live and teach in Charlottesville, Virginia, a place called home for four years by Yeardley Love, a lacrosse player, stellar student, and the breath of grace in countless lives. Her life ended, literally, at the hands of a male lacrosse player. A deafening silence surrounds brutality aimed at girls and women. Though I did not know Yeardley Love, I will try to honor her and every female anywhere whose horrid fate she now shares.

Sexism is socially-constructed gender bias, creating a culture that objectifies females as mere collections of body parts. Sexism ensures a climate in which women are viewed as possessions, as property, as somehow inferior by definition, with the result that male domination of females is sanctioned. Degrading talk is cheap and ugly and usually goes unchecked: at parties, on street corners, in the workplace, in homes, online: ugly remarks give tacit approval to aggression. One group of individuals is targeted; the one trait they share is gender. Imagine tolerating and becoming accustomed to violence perpetrated against ANY other group as a group: any banker, any chef, any politician, any college student, or any athlete, all prey and fair game? Unbelievable? Yes, except when it comes to this one particular group: any female. Domestic Violence shelters overflow. Moreover, the inconceivable number of unreported attacks hovers.

For some twenty years I have taught gender studies at a community college to female and male students of all ages and remarkably diverse backgrounds. What I have read and heard all-too-many times is gruesome testimony to lives shaken, sometimes ruined, perhaps ended by male violence. I always insist in any philosphy course, and emphasize it in gender studies constantly, that we make sure that we ask the right questions. What follows is my effort to ask productive questions, inspired by my students' courage, that can move us forward and let loose the elephant panting in the room.

A student writes: "Was I really drunkenly dancing around and celebrating women who work in the sex trade being beaten? REALLY? ‘Whoop that Trick'? I am feeling this outrage for a reason and I trust it." The question: What responsibility do the entertainment industry and its consumers bear when the portrayal of women in lyrics or video games becomes reality?

"My uncle would come very quietly and lure me or force me with hot, hissing threats to be quiet while he led me downstairs.... Why do children not tell? I was threatened and knew in my heart that this evil monster would do what he said: he would kill my mother.... After the abuse started I quit talking. I became very silent, strangled. Keeping the abuse secret I had to hold everything in. It was so bad that I began to forget that it ever happened, to save my sanity. So my life from childhood up until I became a mother and started to remember was led unconsciously. Then, I remembered the rape. I mourned for my childhood. I mourned for the innocent. Alone in the woods I howled with anger and grief.... It is a good struggle now. I am my own person. I make choices. I am finding my voice." The question is not about my student's youthful silence, a lovely woman whose happy children I spent time with today. The question: What about her uncle's humanity? Let's understand him. Bob Herbert reports in the New York Times in a 2006 article titled "Young, Cold and for Sale" on the booming sex trade in Atlanta where "the demand is increasing for younger and younger prostitutes." The question: Who are these men who fly in "for the day and fly back home that night"? What is a young girl's market value in 2010? Why does the pall of silence shroud child prostitution? Isn't child abuse a crime?

For the final project in his Woman and Philosophy course, a student showed me a montage of film clips from the 2008 presidential primaries. I suggested to the class that, regardless of your political persuasion, a look at the treatment of Sen. Hilary Clinton by the press was a lesson in systemic gender bias. "I didn't believe you so I checked it out," he said. We sat for an agitated fifteen minutes watching the media mock, deride, and dismiss Clinton without reference to her campaign issues. And it was across the board: conservative and liberal networks, local and national reporting, male and female professionals laughing and elbowing each other. The question: How did they keep their jobs? What if I treated my students with such arbitrary ridicule?

I have heard something akin to the following scenario from a number of former female students upon transferring to four-year colleges. "When my parents and I arrived for orientation, the female and male students were separated for their sessions. We learned all the places it was unsafe to go on campus, complete with a map. One stretch was called ‘rape alley.'" The question: What did the male students and their parents hear? It was suggested for their safety that women have a man walk with them at night. The question: From whom is the male protector saving them? Orientation classes: Insanity 101 and Ignorance 102.

I testified on behalf of a student who charged an ex-boyfriend with stalking. He was found guilty; the judge told him quite clearly that he should seek help. He chose instead to appeal the verdict. When we arrived for the hearing of the case in the higher court, my student's court-appointed lawyer bounced out to see her and announced that he had good news: The defense attorney said that his client agreed to plead guilty to assault if she would drop the stalking charge. So hooray there was no need for a trial! "But that's not what he did," his client replied, and much to her lawyer's surprise she decided to press on, albeit unnerved and unsure. This judge also upheld the guilty verdict, despite the prosecution's lack of preparation for trial. The question: What other crime would those sworn to uphold the Law treat in this dishonest way? How about trading a charge of shoplifting for a guilty plea for selling marijuana? OK?

An inordinately anxious, visibly shaking young woman sat through the first weeks of class, a class in which a male student boasted that "if I heard screams from a room with the door closed at a party I would keep walking. That's what brothers do." The question: How many people had witnessed similar comments, laughed with him, and encouraged his wicked mindset? He became red-faced and furious when challenged by me or by his outraged classmates. When the first assignment was due, he didn't show up and never reappeared. In hindsight, I realized that this was when the young woman lost her nervousness and began to participate and relax, though I thought nothing of it at the time. It was not until her final exam that I learned that he had raped her at a fraternity party two years earlier, having slipped a drug into what she thought was a soda. She had pressed charges but her family was not supportive and begged her to let it go because he was from a prominent family; eventually she ran out of money and gave up. The question: Would her family members have been silent if their car were stolen? Their house robbed? Their credit cards lost?

A few of my male colleagues, my friends, were insulting and condescending when I introduced women's studies courses at the College. "Can you earn credits in this class?" "Does it meet only on weekends?" My question: What makes you say this? Would you ask the same questions of the professor of African American Literature? "Is the only good man a dead man?" My question: Is it possible that you feel threatened, and if so, can you tell me why? Tragically, I could write a book on this topic.

These few stories come only from my experience and focus on this global issue specifically as it spirals in the U.S. It is the one completely unacceptable and inexcusable injustice that collectively and often individually we refuse to look squarely in its criminal black eye.

The questions: Do you agree that the cover of silence must be blown immediately? How can each of us combat sexism in our everyday lives? How loud can we shout? Will males join females in the fight for women's lives, in the fight for all our lives? Can we set the tired elephant free? After all, will survival of the fittest also be of the wisest?

Daffodils!

2010-03-26T13:45:00.002-04:00

I WANDERED lonely as a cloud

That floats on high o'er vales and hills,

When all at once I saw a crowd,

A host, of golden daffodils;

Beside the lake, beneath the trees,

Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine

And twinkle on the milky way,

They stretched in never-ending line

Along the margin of a bay:

Ten thousand saw I at a glance,

Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they

Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:

A poet could not but be gay,

In such a jocund company:

I gazed--and gazed--but little thought

What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie

In vacant or in pensive mood,

They flash upon that inward eye

Which is the bliss of solitude;

And then my heart with pleasure fills,

And dances with the daffodils.

- William Wordsworth

What is your daffodil?

Temporary Home

2010-03-22T20:57:00.002-04:00

Little boy, 6 years old
A little too used to bein' alone
Another new mom and dad, another school
Another house that'll never be home
When people ask him how he likes this place
He looks up and says with a smile upon his face

"This is my temporary home
It's not where I belong
Windows and rooms that I'm passin' through
This is just a stop, on the way to where I'm going
I'm not afraid because I know this is my
Temporary home."

When I first heard this song by Carrie Underwood, it caught me off guard. I was innocently listening to the radio on my way to work, not expecting to hear a song that would knock the wind out of me. By now the song is overplayed and seeing the lyrics makes them sound somewhat cheesy, but this song has great meaning. I think most anyone can be touched by the picture the song paints of a boy without a family, shuttled from house to house and never belonging. I suppose it possibly means more to me than to some because I have been the person to do the shuttling.

But why is it necessary? Why are children without a safe place to live in the first place? What exactly is broken in the world that creates such an environment? And why is it so hard to find someone to love and care for these children?

Sure, I know the surface reasons. A lot of the kids in the foster care system have severe mental illnesses, post traumatic stress disorder, they’ve lived a life of abuse and neglect and often no rules or limitations, they’re fearful and they’re confused. Doesn’t exactly make for a cuddly, obedient child. But, that child still needs a home.

I feel as if I am being torn in a million directions as I write this. I wish I had some answers, I wish I had a solution, I wish I had the time and resources to love on each and every child out there who is currently in need. And at the same time, I know just how big of a deal it is to try to care for these children, I know just how great their needs are, and just how out of control some of them can be.

When I worked as caseworker I had to remove children from their homes and take them to live with strangers called foster parents. I had extensive training in my job and they taught us about how traumatic all of that can be, but, the thing they didn’t cover was how to have that conversation with the child. How do I tell a 6 year she can’t stay there anymore because her mom chooses drugs and prostitution over her? How? How do I explain to a 13 year old that I must move her to another foster home because her current one doesn’t want her there anymore? How? There is no good way, I fumbled my way through so many awkward and broken conversations, and in the end the only thing that comes close to working is a hug.

I suppose I don’t have a specific point or goal in writing this, I just cannot help myself from speaking about an issue which is so real and raw within my heart. There are children who need homes, teenagers who need love. How sad is it that I work with kids in the juvenile detention center who say they actually like being there because they know they’ll be clothed, fed, and sheltered, they’ll be kept safe, given boundaries, and given attention. What has gone wrong that it has come to this?

What can the church do? Where are we missing the point? James 1:27 tells us

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

Are we looking after the orphans? And not just the technical orphans who have no living parents, but the children who are in need? If the church isn’t loving them, who is? What sort of example of our loving Father are we giving to the world? What can we do? Who will speak for the unwanted and forgotten children?

A voice unheard...

2010-02-20T09:52:00.007-05:00

In my work with the children in the juvenile justice system I encounter a lot of angry, frustrated and hopeless stories. Kids who have been pushed and moved all over and their voice is never heard. I do a lot of writing activities with my therapy groups, and I have been amazed by the quality of writing they produce, as well as the heart and truth behind it. The most hardened delinquent can fill a page with beautiful, tearful words. Here is one particular poem a girl wrote for me last week...a girl who wants her voice to be heard...

Just because…

Just because I’m a teenager
      Doesn’t mean I’m immature
      Doesn’t mean I’m rebellious
      Doesn’t mean I’m obnoxious
           I am unique.

Just because I’m a woman
     Doesn’t mean I’m girly
     Doesn’t mean I’m inferior
     Doesn’t mean I’m feminine
          I am independent.

Just because I’m African American
     Doesn’t mean I’m a minority
     Doesn’t mean I’m a criminal
     Doesn’t mean I’m incapable
          I am strong.

Just because I’m short
     Doesn’t mean I’m discouraged
     Doesn’t mean I’m not opinionated
     Doesn’t mean I’m not good at sports
          I am beautiful.

NEDAwareness Week 2010

2010-02-18T12:20:00.002-05:00

Next week (February 21-27) is National Eating Disorder Awareness Week. Here are some facts about eating disorders to kick the week off early...

The peak onset of eating disorders occurs during puberty and the late teen/early adult years, but symptoms can occur as young as kindergarten. Eighty percent of all 10-year-olds are afraid of being fat.
As many as 10 million females and 1 million males in the U.S. are battling eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. Approximately 15 million more are struggling with binge eating disorder. Millions practice disordered eating due to an obsession with dieting.
Over the course of one person’s lifetime, at least 50,000 individuals will die as a direct result of eating disorders.
Eating disorders affect people from all walks of life, including young children, middle-aged women, men and individuals of all races and ethnicities.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, eating disorders are serious illnesses with a bio-logical basis modified and influenced by emotional and cultural factors. They are not lifestyle choices.
Eating disorders are preventable and treatable, yet hundreds of people die from them every year. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness.

[Information taken from NEDA]

Sex traffickers ensnared more than 1,000 youths in Ohio last year

2010-02-12T14:07:00.002-05:00

New report documents extent of scourge in state

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:00 PM

By Alan Johnson

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

More than 1,000 youngsters under the age of 18 were sex-trafficking victims in Ohio during the past year, according to the first-ever statewide report on the subject by the Ohio Trafficking in Persons Study Commission.

A preliminary report released this afternoon by Attorney General Richard Cordray concluded that another 2,879 youth were at risk of being trafficked.

An additional 783 foreign-born persons were trafficked for sex or forced labor in Ohio in the past year, with another 3,437 at risk, the report said.

At the same time, the research subcommittee that prepared the report acknowledged that human trafficking is a largely invisible crime, making it "virtually impossible to determine the exact number of victims in Ohio at any given time and with any degree of certainty."

Cordray appointed the high-powered statewide panel based on the recommendation of the state's human-trafficking law, which took effect last year. The commission includes representatives from the FBI, state and local law enforcement, five state agencies, two state lawmakers, a Cleveland juvenile court judge and trafficking survivors from Columbus and Toledo.

A Dispatch examination of sex trafficking published last year prior to the commission's creation confirmed that the practice is a growing, vastly underreported problem that affects inner cities and affluent suburbs.

In compiling the report, the committee reviewed law enforcement records, reports from victim advocacy groups, other studies and stories from eight major Ohio newspapers, including The Dispatch.

Human trafficking, now the second-largest crime in the world behind illegal drug sales, affects at least 18,000 women and girls in U.S. each year, according to national studies. Another 300,000, many of them girls as young as 11, are considered vulnerable.

The Ohio report pinpointed the Toledo area as the fourth-highest metropolitan area -- and top urban area per capita -- for human trafficking cases. Only Miami, Portland, Ore., and Las Vegas had more.

Among the subcommittee's preliminary findings: Ohio's human-trafficking law is "weak." It is not a stand-alone law, merely adding human trafficking on top of other charges.

The committee also found that Ohio's first-responders remain "unaware and unprepared" to deal with trafficking cases, and customers who purchase youth for sex "remain protected, receiving minimal charges and are rarely prosecuted."

The committee called for establishment of more "safe houses" for trafficked youngsters.

The commission's final report and recommendations will be sent to the General Assembly and governor later this year.

Strong on Zeal, Thin in Knowledge: Lessons from Haiti's arrest of American Christians trying to take children out of the country.

2010-02-04T16:54:00.000-05:00

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/februaryweb-only/15-31.0.html

by Jedd Medefind

Newswires buzzed recently with reports that a group of ten Americans from an Idaho-based Christian charity were arrested trying to transport 33 Haitian children into the Dominican Republic contrary to the rules of Haiti's government. Although details are still emerging, the story thus far suggests a potent mingling of good intentions with ill-advised plans. Fellow Christians embarrassed by the incident should have the grace to withhold the abuse many observers are now piling on the group, but we can still take a strong lesson on the need to match zeal with knowledge in every effort to "care for orphans in their distress."

According to their website, the group's goal was to "rescue Haitian orphans abandoned on the streets … and bring them to New Life Children's Refuge in Cabarete, Dominican Republic." This "Refuge" is at present a 45-room hotel the ministry leased to house the children as an interim measure. Ultimately, they planned to construct an orphanage that would provide long-term care, and also the potential of adoption for children that could not be reunited with relatives.

These rickety plans, along with the decision to remove the children from Haiti without approval, were a recipe for trouble. Adding further to the impression of sloppy do-goodism, it now appears that some of the children had living parents and were not in need of rescue at all.

Appropriately, many relief organizations have voiced strong concern over the incident.

Meanwhile, others in the foreign aid world—which often tends to be dismissive of volunteer efforts and highly critical of international adoption—have sought to make the situation a cause célèbre. Private blogs and even some nonprofit websites now venture beyond the known facts, implying gross neglect of the children by the Christian group and even worse. No doubt some hope to harness the situation to foster broader criticism of adoption, and to emphasize the superiority of large-scale, government-centered models of aid to smaller acts of private charity.

Even as we apply strong words to the group's actions—"reckless" and "irresponsible" come to mind—we should first be reminded what this debacle does not tell us: First, it does not tell us that Christians have the market cornered on well-intentioned but poorly-devised attempts at aid.

Far from it. As writers like William Easterly and Dambisa Moyo lay out in disturbing detail, the history of efforts to help the needy—both government and private, religious and secular—is rife with failed largesse. A brief survey of public welfare programs in the U.S. alone would dwarf this situation in both size and foolishness for examples of benevolence gone awry.

Second, it does not tell us that compassion motivated by Christian faith is somehow peripheral to "real" disaster aid. Thousands of committed Christian organizations, churches and individuals—both foreign and indigenous—were effectively meeting deep needs in Haiti even before the earthquake. Today, these entities and recently arrived allies are central to relief efforts on the ground in Haiti, as are Christians in every catastrophe. The actions of a single small group certainly don't define the Christian response, nor should we feel embarrassed of our faith-inspired efforts in response to future disasters.

Finally, it does not tell us that the significance of adoption in caring for orphans should be marginalized. Although the press played up reports that the group had mentioned adoption to the U.S. as one potential way to eventually help some of the children, this was clearly not the group's primary focus. Nor could such adoptions have happened on any scale without massive amounts of U.S. and local paperwork, as any adoptive family knows. The group's errors to date were actually examples of on-the-ground orphan care gone wrong, not of mishandled adoptions. Yet no one is suggesting we should now shun orphan care, nor should they. The Christian community should stand strongly behind a full spectrum of in-country orphan care efforts, as well as the option of international adoption for children who'd otherwise grow up without families.

Amidst all this, what this situation does tell us is much more straightforward. Passion alone is simply not sufficient; it must be consistently paired with wisdom. Zeal without knowledge can be a destructive force. A compassionate impulse may indeed be God's nudging, and certainly should not be ignored. But the hard work of education, preparation, and planning most always stands between us and a job well done. (emphasis mine)

For those freshly woken to the needs of orphans, one other reminder will be helpful as well. Prior to the earthquake, Haiti had an estimated 380,000 children who had lost at least one parent. Tens of thousands lived in orphanages, on Haiti's streets, and as household slaves. These tragic situations are mirrored in many developing countries worldwide. So while the current crisis adds urgency to the biblical call to "defend the cause of the fatherless," the need to respond did not start with Haiti's latest anguish. Nor will it end when the television cameras no longer bring their images to mind.

Thus, in this moment—stirred as we are by Haiti's pain, and freshly reminded of the hazards of poorly-directed zeal—the most significant reminder is that knowledge-guided love is always needful. The emotion we're feeling is one that can be acted upon for the rest of our lives. Amidst the current crisis, we must help as best we can: giving generously, praying seriously, and even working on the ground alongside trustworthy organizations and local churches. Meanwhile, it's never too early to begin readying ourselves for a longer journey, joining passion with preparedness, and compassion with commitment, to serve wisely and well for the distance.

Jedd Medefind is President of the Christian Alliance for Orphans, which will host Summit VI in April 2010 to help churches and organizations seeking to engage in adoption and orphan ministry. He previously served as a Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and led the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Unloved in the church?

2010-02-02T12:04:00.004-05:00

Here's part of an email I got from a dear friend...

"Wanting to feel a part of things is one of the biggest reasons I have a huge problem with church - it is time and time again the unfriendliest place I've ever encountered, I don't fit in try as I might, all while everyone's talking about love."

What do you think? Have you experiences been the same? If so, what might the causes be? What could be a solution? At the risk of sounding horribly cliche, what would Jesus do?

Take Action!

2010-01-28T10:37:00.003-05:00

Join with the International Justice Mission and sign this petition calling on President Obama to protect children from trafficking and exploitation around the world.

Why Haiti?

2010-01-26T11:19:00.007-05:00

With the recent devastating earthquake that struck Haiti, the outpouring of support from the United States and other countries has been astounding. While I am glad people are moved to share their time and resources with those in need, I can’t help but question, why does it take a disaster as extreme as what happened in Haiti to prompt people to give?

I am not trying to minimize the need in Haiti or the poverty; however, I think it is easy to forget the great needs in our own country, our own states and cities when the needs of those elsewhere are constantly on our television screens.

For a little background information…

Homelessness in America
“One approximation of the annual number of homeless in America is from a study by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, which estimates between 2.3 and 3.5 million people experience homelessness.”
(http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html)

Hunger in America
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that in 2008:
Of the 49.1 million people living in food insecure households (up from 36.2 million in 2007), 32.4 million are adults (14.4 percent of all adults) and 16.7 million are children (22.5 percent of all children).
17.3 million [additional] people lived in households that were considered to have "very low food security," a USDA term (previously denominated "food insecure with hunger") that means one or more people in the household were hungry over the course of the year because of the inability to afford enough food. This was up from 11.9 million in 2007 and 8.5 million in 2000.
(http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html)

Forgotten Children in America
According to a study conducted in 2008 there were 463,000 children in foster care with 123,000 of them were waiting to be adopted. These children waiting to be adopted had been in foster care 38 months (mean). (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report16.pdf)

What Now?

I acknowledge my own ignorance to the immediate needs around me, though I am trying to open my eyes and my mind to see that it is there. It’s a lot easier to go about my comfortable lifestyle and turn and look away from those who are in need. I do not claim to have any answers, but I have lots of questions.

So what now? How can we even begin to tackle the massive problem of hunger and homelessness and forgotten children and other forms of need that are on our door steps as we sit glued to the TV about the latest tragedy across the globe? How can we love the people here and there? Should we be adopting children from Haiti and China and other countries when there are children in our own neighborhoods who need a family to love and care for them?

If you are in doubt about how real the need is in America, right here where we are, I can tell you stories. I have been in these homes through my work in a child welfare agency in Cincinnati. I have seen the empty refrigerators; I have had the children asking me for food. I have worked to find a homeless shelter for the family who has nowhere to lay their head. I have been the one forced to remove children from an unsafe home and drive them to a stranger’s house, and I’ve tried to explain to a 6 year old why her mom abandoned her. I've loaded a garbage bag with their only belongings in my drunk and spent countless hours in the car driving teenage girls from foster home to foster home – unable to give a reason why nobody seems to want them – why even their own family won’t open the door to them. I’ve seen the tears and the scars and the lonely faces. And now working in a juvenile detention center I have seen the confused children not understanding why they’re locked up when it is because there is nowhere safe for them to go. I have had teenage boys sit in front of me and sob, but also express gratitude of being locked up because they’re given clothes, food and a safe place to sleep.

This is real.

This is right here.

This is right now.

Who will speak for our neighbors and families and children? Who will give a voice to their need?

What now?

poverty is so hard to see
when it’s only on your tv and twenty miles across town
where we’re all living so good
that we moved out of Jesus’ neighborhood
where he’s hungry and not feeling so good
from going through our trash
he says, more than just your cash and coin
i want your time, i want your voice
i want the things you just can’t give me

[“Rich Young Ruler” by Derek Webb]

Britain Wants to Ban Airbrushed Images

2010-01-24T09:55:00.000-05:00

Britain is continuing its battle against Photoshop. Liberal Democrats are in an uproar over recent Oil of Olay ads featuring Twiggy with glowing, almost perfect skin. Amazing for a woman of her age. But then photos of the model shopping at Marks & Spencer surfaced, and she looked — dare we say it — her own age, with actual wrinkles and jowls, making the image in the ad seem downright silly. Lawmakers are getting their brows furrowed worrying over what effect this could have on young girls. Jo Swinson, the MP for East Dunbartonshire, told the Telegraph:

Today's unrealistic idea of what is beautiful means that young girls are under more pressure now than they were even five years ago. Airbrushing mean that adverts contain completely unattainable images that no one can live up to in real life.

This, of course, isn't the first time the U.K. has gone after Photoshopped images. Last year, the British Fashion Council wanted magazines to state which images had been altered after several high-profile covers were shown to be heavily manipulated, including one of Princess Eugenie.

On top of the ban, the party is asking that plastic-surgery ads be required to carry success rates (though we're not sure what the success rate of breast augmentation is, exactly). Plus, schools will be required to have P.E. classes that girls want, like yoga. So what say you? Does Jessica Alba being made thinner in an ad or having wrinkles erased make you feel bad, or do you realize these are altered? Is there another way to get the message across to young girls without banning Photoshop?

(http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/08/britain_wants_to_ban_airbrushi.html, emphasis mine)

The State of Female Pastors

2010-01-23T18:52:00.003-05:00

Some good news from Everyday Christian.com:

Female pastors are far more numerous in mainline Protestant churches than they were a decade ago...Those are the findings of The Barna Group, a Christian research organization. A little more than 600 pastors were surveyed, matching the sample size of an identical study done in 1999. Surveyors found that there are twice as many female senior pastors as a decade ago, jumping from 5 percent to 10 percent.

The article does go on to note, however, that female pastors are not paid as well as male pastors. You can read the entire article here.

Obviously, I don't believe 10 percent is enough, but to have such a large increase in the last 10 years suggests female pastors are gaining the acceptance they deserve.

Why We Write

2010-01-21T21:23:00.005-05:00

A novel in my library tells the story of a race of people, stolen from their homeland and enslaved in a foreign nation. Forced to serve their masters at an unattainable level of perfection, they are punished severely for the slightest misstep. Often, they are simply executed and replaced. Finding it terribly inconvenient to be reminded of the injustice they have foisted upon these people, their masters force them to lurk inside the walls of their opulent palaces, performing as much of their work as possible out of sight, emerging only when they can do so in secret. Indeed, the masters even train themselves and their children to overlook the slaves when they do happen to appear, so that they become invisible.

The relyimah, they call them; the “unseen.”

This story struck me when I read it and continues to do so. While I do not put myself on the same level as the masters in this story, the past few years have taught me there are many I overlook; there is much I do not see. For most of my life the women stolen from their homes and forced to work as prostitutes, the children abused by their parents or siblings, the sick battling deadly illness, they did not cross my mind. Even now, if I’m being honest with myself, I think of these people only occasionally. Most of the time I choose not to look because I want to worry about my life, my success, what I want.

Yet, these people are all magnificent and wonderful and brilliant. They deserve to be thought about; they deserve to be seen. They aren’t – after all – any less worthy because they don’t stand out to the eye.

So, to bring these people to my mind, I write. I write to help myself focus on someone other than myself. I write to see those who all too often I do not see. Don’t get me wrong – I hope I can help others do the same. But even if no one else ever reads a word, I will still write to help myself remember the relyimah.

And I don’t want it stop here, with simple words. As Donald Miller would say, I want to start writing a better story to live with my life. I want my mission – to seek justice and bring holistic reconciliation to the world by protecting the helpless, caring for needy, comforting the brokenhearted, and liberating the oppressed – to become reality. I want to spread the love of Christ to everyone I meet. I only hope I can really learn to do it.

Book review of "Love and War" by John & Stasi Eldredge

2010-01-16T19:34:00.002-05:00

The book review we wrote for Love and War, a book on marriage by John and Stasi Eldredge, can be found here. It was posted on the CBE Scroll, the official blog of Christians for Biblical Equality.

Beat Me Up

2010-01-13T11:46:00.011-05:00

Anyone who watched American Idol Season 8 probably remembers Allison Iraheta, the spunky young redhead who made it to the top 4. Allison turned 17 during the competition, wowing the judges and fans with her voice and likeable personality. After the show she signed with a contract, recorded and debuted her first album, Just Like You on 12/1/09. It sold around 32,000 copies its first week, putting

I purchased the cd to give as a Christmas gift. After bringing it home I looked Allison up on iTunes to hear some clips, and then searched to read some lyrics to her songs, specifically a song that caught my eye titled “Beat Me Up” It was an upbeat and catchy tune in the clip I heard, and I couldn’t imagine it was really about being beat up, I figured “beat” must be referring to the musical term rather than a term of violence. However, this is what I read:

You like to keep me on a chain, chain, chain
Change your mind
Or change your ways, ways, ways
You got me going through a maze, maze, maze
I know this isn't just a phase, phase, phase
You always pick me up
And then you hold me down
I'll never let you go

Cuz baby even though you beat me up, beat me up
I still love you cuz you heat me up, heat me up
And then so every time you hit me up, hit me up
I come running cuz you fix me up, fix me up
Oh baby just beat me up, beat me up
Oh baby just beat me up, beat me up

You always make me do those things, things, things
Shut me up
And then make me sing, sing, sing
You love it when I scream your name, name, name
But you get your fix out of causing me pain, pain, pain

I really don't care what they say about me
Cuz he gives me everything I want
And they don't know what its like when you need somebody
To the point they can do no wrong
We always fight and then I open up my door

Oh baby just beat me up, beat me up
I still love you cuz you heat me up, heat me up
And then so every time you hit me up, hit me up I come running cuz you fix me up, fix me up
Oh baby just beat me up, beat me up
Oh baby just beat me up, beat me up
Oh baby just beat me up, beat me up

I love you even though you beat me up

I was literally floored by the blatant violence this song depicts, the picture of a distorted and unhealthy relationship that craves pain and accepts it as normal – and even necessary to continue the relationship. All this being sung by a 17 year old girl and marketed to teenage girls.

Through my previous and current jobs I have had a lot of exposure to the astonishing prevalence of domestic violence. It is extremely common in teenage dating relationships, so common the girls do not know it is not how things are supposed to be.

Real quick, here are some statistics on domestic violence, as well as teen dating abuse.

One out of two women will experience domestic abuse at least once their marriage.
Domestic violence claims the lives of four women each day
More women are killed by their partners than by muggings, rapes and auto accidents combined.
75% of all 911 calls are domestic abuse calls.
Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15-44.
65% of emergency room visits by women are for injuries sustained during domestic violence.
The loss in productivity due to absenteeism, employee turnover and health care expenses from domestic violence costs U.S corporations between $3 and $5 billion annually.
60% of violent homes where the female partner is beaten so are the children.

(Stats from http://www.nottopeoplelikeus.com/body/profiles.html#signs)

And when it comes to violence in teen relationships…a survey was conducted in 2006 by the Teenage Research Unlimited which indicates...

1 in 5 teens who have been in a serious relationship report being hit, slapped or pushed by a partner.
1 in 3 girls who have been in a serious relationship say they’ve been concerned about being physically hurt by their partner.
1 in 4 teens who have been in a serious relationship say their boyfriend or girlfriend has tried to prevent them from spending time with friends or family; the same number have been pressured to only spend time with their partner.
1 in 3 girls between the ages of 16 and 18 say sex is expected for people their age if they’re in a relationship; half of teen girls who have experienced sexual pressure report they are afraid the relationship would break up if they did not give in.
Nearly 1 in 4 girls who have been in a relationship (23%) reported going further sexually than they wanted as a result of pressure.

(Stats from http://www.loveisrespect.org/is-this-abuse/dating-abuse-fast-facts/)

If I didn’t see evidence of this every day I would have a hard time believing it exists, and even talking to the victims it’s hard for me to understand. But, when taking into account the high occurrences of domestic violence between adults – which many of these teens have witnessed – it makes a little more sense. And add to that how common it is to see celebrities engaged in domestic violence, songs and movies portraying it as normal.

In 1999 Whitney Houston spoke about the violence between her and Bobby Brown as “…when we're fighting, it's like that's love for us”. And think of the popular children’s movie, “Beauty and the Beast” which essentially teaches girls they should tolerate domestic violence and stay with their abusers until they change and then they will live happily ever after.

Why must it be like this? Why do teens experiences violence in their relationships and not only endure it but accept the abuse behavior it as normal? Why do they continue to stay in a relationship in which they feel unsafe and threatened?

For Additional Information:
“Love is Respect” http://www.loveisrespect.com/
“Take Back The Night” http://www.takebackthenight.org/index.html
“National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center” http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/index.asp
“Love is Not Abuse” http://www.loveisnotabuse.com/

Sex trafficking in the U.S.

2010-01-11T13:12:00.005-05:00

Data from Gracehaven:

Between 325,000 to 421,000 youth in the U.S. are either actively involved in sex trafficking or are at high risk of becoming involved.

A University of Pennsylvania Study estimated the following:
Numbers of children at risk of Commercial Sexual Exploitation:
208,000 children not living in their own homes
7,000 children living in their own homes
400 gang members and street youth
32,000 international youth
Total is approx. 325,000

A second study* performed in 2006 looking at a nationally representative sample of 13,294 adolescents found that 3.5% of American adolescents had exchanged sex for money or drugs. According to U.S. Census data, that’s 421,415 American adolescents!

*Edwards, J., Iritani, B. and Hallfors, D. “Prevalence and correlates of exchanging sex for drugs or money among adolescents in the United States”. Sex Transm Infect 2006;82:354-358.

And, a video worth watching from the New York Times.

A Reaction to Captivating by John & Stasi Eldredge

2010-01-06T10:25:00.000-05:00

This is not a formal review of the book, but rather my reaction to the ideas put forth. I do not necessarily claim to have a solution or a better idea for how to write such things - nor do I claim to - this is just my personal response.

You can use the below links to go quickly to whatever chapter you would like to read about.

(Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture I quote is from the TNIV. I have put quotes from the book in blue and quotes from the Bible in red.)

Captivating - Chapter 12 - An Irreplaceable Role

2009-12-10T13:04:00.005-05:00

This is the final chapter of the book. The opening paragraph is essentially the same as the opening paragraph in the previous chapter. It uses the same flowering language to describe a woman; however, this account of Cinderella waiting for the invitation is given to us as an example to follow. The authors explain, “As a woman you don’t need to strive or arrange, you don’t need to make it happen. You only need to respond.” (202) How do they figure this? In what case does a mother (which they say is the highest calling of a woman) NOT arrange? They attempt to “prove” their point by giving the example of some women in the Bible who were asked to do things, such as Mary the mother of Jesus. But they conveniently managed to forget the women who took the initiative, such as Ruth who they put up on a pedestal a few chapters ago, to just name one.

“History is still unfolding, and your existence on this earth as a woman is proof that you have an irreplaceable role to play. You are a woman, are you not? An ezer kenegdo to your core.” (205) First of all, where is the “proof” in that statement?? Just because EVE was created to be an ezer kenegdo does NOT mean that is the role of every single woman since then. Eve was created in a world without sin; we are born into a world in which sin exists. The story of Eve was written in Genesis, in a world that lived under the old law, while today we live free from the law. The authors insist that ezer kenegdo is at the core of a woman’s existence and purpose…so why is that phrase used just once talking about women in the entire Bible? If it is so important and crucial, why does it not show up again in directions to women? Why are women told to submit to their husbands rather than to help? Do the authors really think God could have such a monumental overlook?

“You feminine heart is an invitation by your Creator. To what? To play an irreplaceable role in his Story.” (205) I don’t even understand this statement.

The authors spend several pages writing about women who play an “irreplaceable role”. They start with a woman who “hopes and desires to pursue a high education. There is so much that she wants to do, to learn, to experience. She has given up so much of her own life in order to bring life to her little boy…God called Carol to the high position of mother…Carol chose to say “yes” to God and follow his lead into the hidden life of a stay-at-home mom. God is meeting her there. In the hiddenness, she is discovering the holy. And she is playing the most irreplaceable, essential, powerful, life-impacting role imaginable” (207) The authors speak throughout the book about how our desires and longings are so important, so why do they commend this woman for ignoring hers and giving up what she desires? I’m not saying it’s wrong to be a stay-at-home mom, but I am saying it’s not for everyone, motherhood isn’t for everyone and that’s okay.

Next they write about a girl who races sled dogs, “She is willing to take enormous risks to become the woman she is meant to be…Her grandmother runs marathons and her mother guides backcountry skiing in Alaska. Women of adventure, each of them!” (208) First of all, how is it that the “woman she is meant to be” is a sled racer...doesn’t seem very feminine or needing of men to me. Secondly, those examples of the adventures her mother and grandmother participate in are not “sharing an adventure [with a man]” as the authors insist is the desire of a woman’s heart, but they’re independent and self-reliant adventures. How does that fit with the authors world view?

Then the authors make a ridiculous statement in saying, “Eve is God’s relational specialist given to the world to keep relationships a priority. Men have a way of letting thing slip..Our enemy despises relationship, hates love in any form, fears its redemptive power. That is why God sent Eve. Women are needed to protect relationships, bring them back to center stage where they belong…But as women we must hang onto this – that because of the Trinity, relationship is the most important thing in the universe.” (209) I don’t even know where to start on this one. Where do they get their belief that “Eve is God’s relational specialist”? There is no Biblical evidence for this. They insult men and feed into the self-fulfilling prophecy and mistaken belief that men are not relational. They think that God sent even to protect relationship...there was not a relationship before Eve, for she was the first woman! True, Adam had a relationship with God, but that is not the relationship they are writing about. How can they insist that women’s role since the beginning was the protect relationships when there were no relationships when woman was first created? And, isn’t it the man’s role to “protect”?

“There are many things God calls us to do, but loving well always comes first.” (210) They’re talking about relationships with others, but God first calls us to love HIM not others.

“Satan knew that to take out Adam, all he had to do was take out Eve- his ezer kenegdo…Your place in the world as God’s heart for relationship is vital.” (210) How do the authors know Satan’s thoughts? Kinda creepy...

“Have you noticed in Paul’s letters to the young church how often he has to intervene in relationships? “I plead with Eudoia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2). He’s addressing two women there, by the way.” (210) This is a ridiculous example, the authors are clearly ignoring the abundance of contrary evidence, the numerous examples in scripture in which reference to friendship or relationships are gender neutral or referring to men:

“Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy…” Hebrews 12:14

"Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters.” Hebrews 13:1

“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” 1 John 4:7

"A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for a time of adversity.” Proverbs 17:17

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you." - John 15:13-15,“After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.” - 1 Samuel 18:1

The authors take on a dangerous topic when they write, “Many of the Scriptures on the Role of woman in the church are a reflection of God’s concern for a woman’s protection and spiritual covering. We live in a dangerous world. Satan’s opposition of the church is vicious. He bears a special hatred for Eve. It follows that God would want to ensure that a woman helping to advance his Kingdom would be offered the covering and protection of good men. Issues of headship and authority are intended for the benefit of women, not their suppression…God desires that wherever and however you offer yourself to the Body of Christ, you’ll have the protection of good men over you. Not to hold you back, but to set you free as a woman. Christ has made man as his warrior, to offer his strength on behalf of Eve so that she might flourish.” (211) First of all, this statement is largely relying upon the blatantly unsupportable belief the authors hold that Satan has a “special hatred” of women. The “roles” of women in the church were written in a culture that was drowning in oppression of women. Women had no rights, they had no value, they were property. A man could have his wife killed if he was not pleased with her in the Roman culture. I am not trying to say the Bible is not relevant today, however, it is absolutely crucial that we keep in mind the fact the Bible was written to a specific people during a specific time which we have little understanding of. Combine that with biased translations of the Bible throughout the years (those who say a translation of the Bible is infallible and inspired, how do you explain the profound differences between the translations?) I believe the original text of the Bible was as God intended, however, it has been handled and translated and re-translated and translated some more by sinful people living in specific culture which affected their translation) .

There are countless examples of women being oppressed in the church today, which is the logical conclusion of people who do not consider the cultural influences of scriptures instructing men to be leaders and women to submit. Why is it that almost no churches today follow the command that women are to remain silent in church, but are okay with not allowing women to be pastors? Why do people say women are not to teach men, but mixed-gender groups flock to hear Joyce Meyer speak and everyone is okay with that? There are churches in which women, in practice, lead groups such as the youth ministry, but there must be a man who “acts” like the leader and “gives his blessing” while in practicality he has no connection to the group other than to dominate over the woman who he and his church believes is incapable and weak.

People turn to the instructions for selecting elders in places like 1 Timothy 3:1-5 where it says. "Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)" as evidence that only men can serve in the role of elders (never mind all the places were “elder/leader/prophet” was translated to be only masculine when the original text was gender neutral) They say “Oh, it says he, so it must be a man!” Never mind the fact that it says “faithful to his wife” and many allow leaders who are unmarried, and leaders whose children do not obey them. That’s dissecting and picking and choosing. If you’re going to follow part of it literally, follow all of it, including the instructions for marriage and children for elders/pastors/leaders/etc.

The church I am currently attending we picked largely for the reason they do not hold to the oppressive views of women most churches do. There are no restrictions for women, for they are permitted to speak and pray in public, a woman can hold any leadership role that a man can. That was the case with my previous church as well.

The authors thoroughly insult and neglect the great leader Deborah by writing, “Deborah was an advisor to Israel on matters of justice, economics, and warfare.” (212) Okay, that statement is okay if you would call the President of the United States + Chief Justice of the Supreme Court an “advisor”. Deborah WAS THE LEADER! She was IN CHARGE! She wasn’t just an advisor, she was the presiding judge, she was the “general” of the army, she was plain and simple in charge of the country of Israel. In a book in which the authors claim women are the “crown of creation” why would they degrade a fabulous example of a woman who is powerful and important?

On pages 213 the authors write “So let’s come back to what Peter said when he urged women to offer their beauty to others. This is the secret of femininity unleased: Do not give way to fear. (1 Peter 3:6)” First of all, that is NOT what Peter is writing about! The authors spend the next page horribly disfiguring the text and while I generally agree with their conclusion, how they distorted and took things out of context to get there was frightening. Take for example their quoting of the verse in the passage I just referenced. They give no indication they have chosen just part of the verse, they make it appear that they are including the whole verse and it is a complete sentence. However, when you look at the real verse, it reads as follows: "like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.” Not quite the same simple and straightforward statement they lead us to believe. The authors make the claim that the key to being beautiful is to not give way to fear. There is little logic or flow in their argument; it is a manipulation of scripture.

Stasi writes about her experience of not giving way to fear by saying, “It was very hard and immensely risky for me to begin to speak and offer from my heart at our women’s retreats. Terrifying, really. You see, when I first began to speak, I was severely overweight. My sin, my addiction, was plain for all to see. To stand in front of a group of women and be clearly failing in the outward beauty department was humbling and hard.” (214 emphasis mine) The authors at various times have insisted that every woman is beautiful just as they are, yet here Stasi is agreeing with the concept of beauty which the media pushes on us by believing that being overweight meant she was not beautiful.

Captivating, Chapter 11 - Warrior Princesses

2009-12-04T13:00:00.006-05:00

Chapters 11 begins as the authors write, "Women are often portrayed in stories and tales as the "Damsel in Distress." We are the ones for whom men rise up and slay dragons. We are the "weaker sex,"...the ones waiting in our flowing gowns for knights to come and carry us away on the back of his white horse…we do long to be fought for; loved enough to be courageously protected. But there is a mighty fierceness set in the hearts of women by God. This fierceness is true to who we are and what we are created to do. Women are warriors too." (186) In the first half of this quotation, I find it is interesting they say this, implying this to be a negative aspect of how women are portrayed while they have spent a large portion of this book exalting the movies and stories in which women are portrayed in this manner, claiming these movies represent the true longings of women. Once again, the authors are making statements about God’s intentions and methods, which are wholly unsupported by Scripture. They blatantly contradict themselves from their previous writings about men being made in the image of a warrior God and men being warriors to suddenly saying “women are warriors too”.

Additionally, when Ryan read this first paragraph he actually got confused by the first part of quotation. “Wait,” he said, “this statement is supposed to be negative? Isn’t that what they’ve been saying the whole book?” Interestingly enough, in the next chapter they begin by holding Cinderella in high esteem for waiting for an invitation rather than striving on her own…how do they rationalize these two blatantly contrasting ideas? Do they not notice these things?

This book, as I have pointed out a multitude of times, puts forth the notion that a woman’s femininity is more important than her existence as a human being. This chapter continues to display this flawed thinking for the authors believe, "We will only be victorious when we enter in with our feminine hearts - when we battle as women" (188).

While the authors claim they are not trying to shower women with shame, they persist in providing a laundry list of traits women need to attain, including “tender, merciful hearts, backbones of steel and hands that have been trained for battle." (188) and again they write more “What does a warrior princess look like? ...women who were wise, cunning ,strong, beautiful courageous, victorious and very present." (197)

The authors make the following statement, "Women are not meant to be helpless creatures. God has given us a fierceness that is holy and it is to be used on the behalf of others." (196) While I wholeheartedly agree that women are not meant to be helpless, I disagree with the second sentence just as wholeheartedly, for the reason that they do not provide any citation for it, and they erroneously assign the word “holy” to an arbitrary statement as they have many times. Nowhere in the Bible does God say he has given women “a fierceness that is holy”, therefore one should not go around putting those words in God’s mouth or writing as if it were true.

"Chapters 4 and 5 in the book of Judges tells the story of Deborah, the prophetess who led Israel. Through her. God commanded the Israelites to go to war against Sisera and the Canaanite armies. The leader of the Israelite army, a man named Barak, would go to war only if Deborah went with them. He would not go if she did not. So Deborah went. "But because of the way you are going about this," said Deborah, "the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will hand Sisera over to a woman" (Judges 4:9)." This is a wonderful story the authors did not do justice to. They wrote about Deborah as if she was passive and weak in saying that “So Deborah went” in response to Barak saying he would not go without here. Deborah was a prophet, a judge, a leader of all Israel. In fact, she was the highest human authority in the entire nation. All things that many insist women are not able or permitted to do, while here we see God handing victory to the hands of a woman instead of a man for she was willing to go.

The authors quote Ephesians 6:10-13 which is an entirely gender neutral passage,

“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."

The authors quote a daily prayer a random women told them she wrote which is a horrific mutation of the above passage, "I now put on with thanks the armor which you have provided me- girding myself with the belt of truth; binding up all that is vulnerable of my femininity; first my need to be pursued and fought for. Thank You for daily pursuing me and fighting for me as well. I also gird up my desire to be irreplaceable in a grand scheme of Yours. You have placed this desire within me and I wrap Your truth around it, in the hope of what you will Do. Grand me eyes to see each day in light of your activity, to live in the big-ness of Your story. I gird up my desire to offer life through my gifting, the beauty you have bestowed on me. I ask you to continue to reveal and confirm what You desire to do through me and all You have given to me. I trust that You have called me by name and have given me a love, a beauty, a gift to pour out on my family, my friends, and those You bring to me. May this day be an offering of love poured out before You on the altar of my life.” (200-201) This woman basically writes a prayer to John Eldredge! She is basing her prayer and basically her existence on the three desires that John Eldredge tells her she has, though he is unable to find any legitimate scriptural backing for it. This women calls beauty “my gifting”. If you do a study of spiritual gifts, beauty is not one of them, but this woman blindly believes the Eldredges in thinking that is all she has to offer the world rather than relying on the Bible to learn about the gifts of the spirit.

The final paragraph of the chapter writes, “Your life is a Love Story set in the midst of a life-and-death battle. The beauty, the adventure, the intimacy – they are what are most real. But it is a battle to gain them and battle to keep them. A battle for your heart and a battle for the hearts around you. “The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is his name.” (Ex 15:3). Jesus fights on your behalf and on behalf of those you love. He asks you to join him.” (201) I find it quite interesting the authors use Exodus 15:3 to support their belief that women are “warrior princesses” and called to fight, when it is the same verse they use to try to support their belief that men are created differently than women in the sense that they are created to be warriors and to fight. How can one verse have it both ways, especially a verse that speaks nothing of the human nature?

Captivating, Chapter Ten - Mothers, Daughters, Sisters”

2009-12-04T12:57:00.005-05:00

The majority of this chapter is Stasi narrating her relationship with her mother, so I do not have much to comment on in that regard. Throughout the other parts of the chapter, the authors frequently fluctuate between the words they have assigned to describe males and the words they have assigned to describe females. On one hand they insist that God made men to be warriors, to be strong and brave while he made women to be beautiful, inviting and soft. Yet in this chapter entitled “Mothers, Daughters, Sisters” they begin by talking about the term “mother” in saying “Mother is powerful. Mother is strong.” (168) These are “masculine” terms, so how can they also be associated with a feminine role?

They continue with a previously made mistake of taking the liberty to assign the word “holy” to describe things which have no business sharing that word with the creator of the universe. For example, they write “the relationship between a mother and daughter is a holy, tender, fierce thing…” (169). What reason to they have to believe this is any more holy than any other aspect of life?

As is a part of the title of this chapter, the authors talk at length about mothers and what it means “to mother”. They write, “All women are not mothers, but all women are called to mother. To mother is to nurture, to train, to educate, to rear. As daughters of Eve, all women are uniquely gifted to help others in their lives become more of who they truly are – to encourage, nurture, and mother them toward their true selves. In doing this, women partner with Christ in the vital mission of bringing forth life… The nurturing of life is a high and holy calling. And as a woman, it is yours…but uniquely and deeply, this calling makes up part of the very fiber of a woman’s soul – the calling to mother” (177) This is a typical example of the authors writing about how they feel the world is supposed to be and making it into what is supposed to be a irrefutable statement about how God has created things, while not providing an ounce of support for it. For example, they write that all women are “uniquely gifted to help others in their lives..” yet they do not say why this is, or how women can do this and men cannot. They throw the word “holy” in to try to make their point seem legitimate while they continue to make bold statements that are supposed to stand alone across time and culture when it cannot be proven even within a single individual. Also, I am intrigued by the fact that the authors say that nurturing “makes up part of the very fiber of a woman’s soul”, yet they waited until page 177 of their book to mention this important fact? Their insistence on a woman’s natural inclination towards mothering and nurturing is bound to bring shame and a sense of condemnation to a woman who does not feel this way, and it could in fact bring about a dangerous situation in which a woman bears a child because she feels she’s supposed to and she’s not a real woman without doing so, and this woman is unprepared, unwilling or perhaps unable to care for this child.

The inconsistency between the way the authors believe men and women are made in the image of God is seen when they say, “All women are made in the image of God in that we bring forth life.” (179) In the previous paragraph I quoted where the authors write that not all women are mothers, so, if women who are not mothers are able to bring forth life, then men are too. That and the fact that women and men are involved in the process of creating new life, it is not solely a woman’s task.

Next the authors speak about the relationship between women as friends. Stasi writes, “I love the way women friends have with each other. When I gather with a group of women friends, inevitable someone begins to rub someone else’s back. Hair gets played with. Merciful, tender, caressing, healing touches are given. Men don’t do this with each other. It is unique to women. When women gather, they ask meaningful questions.” (179) First of all, that’s not an accurate description of what happens when I get together with my girlfriends, and I am sure I am not the only one who differs from their description. So if this type of relationship isn’t true for men – and it’s not true for me, what does it mean? Does it mean I am not a woman, but a man? Second, it sounds just plain creepy…it’s like in Friends how Joey thinks that girls always have pillow fights in their underwear. And the authors are continuing to try to make women feel special by saying things are “unique to women.’

“We are designed to live in relationship and share in the lives of other women. We need each other. God knows that. He will help us. We have only to ask and surrender, to wait, to hope, and in faith to love.” (182) How do you know we were designed to live in relationship with other women? How do you know that God knows this? When God said it’s not good for man to be alone, he created woman, the implication taken from that is women are enough to keep men company, so presumably it works both ways. I am not making this argument, I think there is great value in same-sex friendships, however I don’t think God should be brought into that as he does not speak of it. The authors make examples of Jesus’ relationship with the disciples, but those relationships are not necessary supposed to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. If you want to get technical about it, Jesus also primarily ate bread, fish and wine – so does that mean we should be doing the same?

In the 16 pages of this chapter the authors only put forth a single Bible verse as any support for their beliefs. On one hand I am pleased with this, for it means they are not as active in pulling scripture out of context and distorting it to fit their preferences as they do in previous chapters. And I am fine with books not being based upon the Bible, there are a multitude of excellent books on any variety of topics which do not have a Biblical stance. HOWEVER, when the authors write 16 pages and only cite one verse, while continually telling readers that God has made things to be the way this way without providing any support, that IS a problem. If the authors were simply to have written “this is how we think things are based upon the things we have observed in our lives”, I would still disagree, but I would let it slide. However, the authors are saying “we KNOW this is true because God created it this way” without any support or citation. I mean, could such a statement as that make it more than a day on Wikipedia? No, to make such bold statements about what my God says and does needs support behind it which is clearly lacking throughout this chapter as well as the duration of the book as a whole.

Captivating, Chapter Nine - Arousing Adam

2009-11-22T12:49:00.007-05:00

The authors start out by talking about how to love a man. They write, “think about it-all those heroes in all those tales play the hero because there is a woman in his life, a true Beauty who is his inspiration.” (149) This is one of many example in which the authors ignore the contrary evidence…there are plenty of movies in which there is not a “true Beauty” the hero is fighting for…the commonly quoted Lord of the Rings is an example of this…Frodo and Gandalf are two main heroes and they do not have a woman in their life. Most of the heroes in the story do not! Looking to Hollywood to make conclusions about how the word is results in terribly screwed and inaccurate conclusions, as have been made throughout this book. If I were to rely on the popular love stories on the movie screen to learn the secrets of a woman’s heart I would also have to conclude that all women wear a size 2, have endless resources with which to buy designer clothing and will always live happily ever after. Hollywood (movies, books, etc) tells us what we want to hear, not what is true.

A statement follows shortly which says, “True femininity calls forth true masculinity.” (149) While one may argue that this statement is made within the context of a chapter on the relationship between men and women, it is a dangerous statement none the less. It directly implies that masculinity relies upon femininity, therefore a man can not truly be a man unless a “true” woman is present to arouse it in him. What about the men who are not in the presence of any women, not to mention a “true” woman? Do they not have a chance at being truly masculine? And as always, I would ask the authors what do the words femininity and masculinity really mean? Within this book they are used so vaguely as to remove all sense of meaning from them.

"Mary Pipher’s well-known book Reviving Ophelia documents this tragic shift in adolescent. This almost total loss of self. Girls who were confident and courageous in their youth become uncertain in their teens.” (152) First of all, how many of you know this “well-known” book? Second of all, the authors are missing what was really said in Pipher’s book. Pipher observed that girls who were previously naturally outgoing and confident get worn down by sexist cultural expectations by the “media saturated, girl-poisoning culture.” (as read on page 22 of the actual book) I believe this is the very culture that the authors of Captivating are exalting and holding as examples to aspire to – gentle and quiet women in pretty dresses waiting for their prince charming to come rescue them.

“It means the world to me to have Stasi say, “You are such a man.” It means the world the world to have John say to me, “Stasi, you are a beautiful woman.” (153) Why can’t she be complimented by just being a woman, why must it be a beautiful woman? John appears to be happy to simply be called a man. If “the essence of a woman is beauty” isn’t it implied with saying the world woman, in the way they are implying strength when using the world man? Why is it that man can be a compliment when just woman is not?

There are many occasions within this chapter in which the authors continue to write about the way in which femininity and masculinity interact, specifically the way femininity brings forth masculinity. Here are a few examples.. “Femininity is what arouses his masculinity. His strength is what makes a woman yearn to be beautiful.” (154) “The beauty of a woman is what arouses the strength of a man. He wants to play the man when a woman acts like that. You can’t hold him back. He wants to come through. And this desire is crucial. Don’t you want him to want to come through for you. Not to be forced to, not because he “ought to.” But because he wants to come through.” (154) “A woman wants to feel beautiful. The strength of a man makes her feel so. A man wants to feel strong. The beauty of a good woman makes him feel so.” (155) How does this work with their previous statements about not taking our “Question” to the opposite sex, about not relying on a man (or woman) to make us feel complete? They write in a way which seems quite straightforward that a man needs a woman in order to be a proper man. How does this affect singles?

The authors take great freedom in reinterpreting the story from the book of Ruth of her relationship with Boaz. They specifically say, “Boaz needs a little help getting going…” (157) Isn’t he supposed to be initiating? Wasn’t she emasculating him by demonstrating she did not trust him to come through for her, she didn’t trust that he was a real man so she needed to do it for herself. They say her actions “awakens his desire to be the Hero.” (158) What heroic behavior did he exhibit? What was it he did to make him a hero??

An interesting contradiction exists in this statement, “However it is expressed in the uniqueness of your own femininity, arousing Adam comes down to this: Need him. And believe in him.” (161) First of all, how can it be unique if it is the same for all women? Second of all, teaching such passivity and dependency in women is as dangerous as even, but I talked about that last chapter so I won’t go into it further.

I don’t want to take the time to fully put it in context, but the authors write about a woman who asked her husband whether he was interested in her, or just her body, and they say “It was a brilliant trap, well set.” (162) Is a trap not controlling? Is it not manipulative? The authors have written at length about how it is bad to be a controlling woman, yet that exalt this women for the trap she set for her husband!

On page 165 Stasi asked a man to pray for her and he did. She says of the situation, “I made myself vulnerable to him, needed him, in a perfectly innocent way. He came through for me, offered his strength in a perfectly innocent way. My thanks to him was a way of saying, “you have what it takes” How is it that prayer = strength? If women were praying would it be demonstrating strength for them? How was saying “thanks’ saying “you have what it takes”? Is telling a woman thanks also saying “you have what it takes”? This is a common error the authors make, taking the exact situation and interpreting it differently based upon the fact they believe gender to be the most important part about it. If the same words are said to a man and to a woman, then it is the same words. It does not magically change to mean “you have what it takes” when said to a man, or “you are beautiful” to a woman. When seeing these weak examples it becomes more obvious the authors are striving to create differences where none actually exist.

In closing I will say the authors do make some good points about women not depending on men for fulfillment, unfortunately, the rest of their chapter does not line up with that statement.

(All emphasis within quotations is by the authors)

Captivating, Chapter Eight - A Beauty To Unveil

2009-11-16T13:36:00.004-05:00

Chapter 8 is long, however it does not say very much beyond what has already been said in previous chapters. It starts of with the direct statement, “The essence of a man is Strength. A man is meant to be the incarnation – our experience in human form – of a warrior God. A God who comes through for us.” (128, emphasis theirs) The authors then quote Isaiah 63:1 which reads “Who is this coming from Edom, from Borzah, with his garments stained crimson? Who is this, robed in splendor, striding forward in the greatness of his strength? “It is I, speaking in righteousness, might to save.”” There is absolutely no indication whatsoever in that verse (or any verse) to say that God’s strength is only meant to be transmitted through the male gender. This verse in Isaiah is speaking about God not man. And seeing as all humans are made in God’s image, and this particular image is one of strength, then all humans inhabit strength – male and female. There is nothing in the Bible which says a man’s purpose and meaning is to be strength.

The authors continue, speaking from a female viewpoint in saying, “We long for the protection masculine strength offers. To have them shield us from physical harm, yes. But also to have them shield us from emotional harm and spiritual attack. To intercede for us in a relationship which has become hurtful.” (129) There is nothing masculine about this kind of strength. Women are perfectly capable of providing physical protection (while generally women are not as physically strong as men, they can still be strong) as well as protection from emotional and spiritual attacks. The authors have previously talked about the “fierceness” of a woman in the ways she will stand up for her children, her friends and her family – and this is true. There is nothing about a woman that makes her inferior in providing emotional and spiritual protection. The authors appear to disagree as they continue by saying, “As women we long for someone strong to stand between us and the vicious assaults of our Enemy.” (129) On what do they base their assumption that men more are equipped to stand up to these assaults? Where is that in the Bible? Why are men forced to stand up for their women AND themselves with no help?

Stasi writes about a time John “began to take his authority over me as my husband.” (129) This statement represents common misconception that husbands have authority over their wives. If one were to carefully read the Bible, they would find only one time in which the word authority is used to refer to the relationship between a husband and wife. That occurs in 1 Corinthians 7:4, where it reads as follows: “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” Notice that mutual authority is granted here, so while the husband does have authority over his wife’s body, the wife likewise has authority over her husband’s body. There is no mention of the husband controlling or being stronger, simply a call for mutual submission and authority.

After providing this lengthy and stigmatizing account of men, the authors change gears and report, “The essence of a woman is Beauty. She is meant to be the incarnation – our experience in human form – of a Captivating God. A God who invites us.” (130 emphasis theirs) They then quote Isaiah 55:1-2 (I have italicized the words they left out of their quotation, “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why spend your money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and you will delight in the richest of fare” They also quote Song of Solomon 4:9 and 4:15, (again I have italicized what they left out of their quotation in the book) “You have stolen my heart, my sister, by bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace. How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice!” “You are a garden fountain, a well of flowing water streaming down from Lebanon” As with their attempts to “prove” that men=strength, the authors have failed to find any scriptural support for their belief that women are meant to be beautiful and meant to soley represent the beauty of God. They rely on verses written by a man to his love, and presume that all women must be the same. They are also making a dangerous mistake in looking at women and taking that information and forming God in her image rather than the other way around. Every human is made in God’s image. God is not in the business of only sharing half of himself with each gender. How would he be benefited by limiting himself like that?

The authors spend the rest of the chapter talking about the beauty of a woman. They write, “God has given this Beauty to Eve, to every woman. Beauty is core to a woman - who she is and what she longs to be – and one of the most glorious ways we bear the imagine of God in a broken and ugly world….Women want to impact their world for good. As corulers with Adam, we are created to do so, and one of the key ways we influence our world is in making it a more beautiful place to live. We decorate our homes. We put flowers on the table, Pioneer women brought china teacups into the wilderness, and I bring a pretty tablecloth to eat on when my family camps. We wear perfume, paint our toenails, color our hair, and pierce our ears, all in an effort to be even more beautiful.” (132) I find this whole passage to be ridiculous and stigmatizing. Yes, women do bear the image of our beautiful God – but so do men. The authors describe ways in which they have witnessed women sharing beauty – through decorating and surface level beauty. What about in other cultures, where mere survival takes the place of pretty table clothes and hair color? Do you think that Mary, the mother of Jesus, stopped to clean and decorate the stable in which she gave birth to Jesus? There are so many more ways that women can bring good into the world than merely through physical beauty, the authors are painfully limiting women in refusing to open their mind beyond our culture’s stereotypes and gender myths.

On page 133 the authors describe a woman they talk about at length in regard to her beauty, “Her hair was long, swept up loosely and held by decorative combs. She wore unique, dangly earrings and pretty flowing skirts.” Seriously, can they possibly stereotype any more? Statements like this are passive in the way they create shame and confusion for a woman who doesn’t want to wear her hair long, who doesn’t have the earrings and the flowing skirt that the authors use to explain how beautiful this woman is. The authors do speak beyond her physical beauty – but they mention it first.

The authors speak at length about the need for a woman to be quiet, drawing on 1 Peter 3:3-4 “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.” And a single line in Zepheniah 3:17 which says “He will quiet you with his love”. Luckily they do point out they are not calling women to never speak, but are encouraging a quiet and gentle spirit, embodying peace. They put much stock in these verses, which do not support what they are writing. The passage in 1 Peter, when looked at in context, is full of cultural details which are no longer followed today, but the authors do not acknowledge this may be true of the verses they quote as well. The two verses using the word “quiet” are not using them in the same way, nor are they relating “quiet” with “beauty” as the authors do. All in all, the authors appear to be telling women to “rest, don’t strive”, but is that really beauty, or is it peace? Is it really feminine, or is being comfortable and at rest something that is across the genders?

As they have done and will continue to do, the authors assume that our gender is more important than our belonging to the human race. They instruct their readers to “Ask Jesus to show you your beauty. Ask him what he thinks of you as a woman.”(135, emphasis theirs)Why can’t I just be a human being?

The authors write an interesting statement in a section under the subtitle of “Offering Beauty” when they say, “Have you noticed in reading the Gospels that people enjoyed being around Jesus? They wanted to be near him – to share a meal, take a walk, have a lingering conversation. It was the gift of his presence. When you were with him, you felt he was offering you his heart. When we offer our unguarded presence, we live like Jesus. And we invite others to do the same.” (138) First of all, Jesus was a man, so why is it that only women are being instructed to follow after this trait of his? How can a man have a feminine characteristic such as beauty? Second of all, how do the authors know how it felt to be in the presence of Jesus? And what do they make of all the people who wanted to and DID kill him? There are plenty of men who invite others to know Jesus, especially considering the fact that very few churches allow women to be pastors or leaders, so be default it is almost solely the men who act in inviting others to know Jesus. Does that mean they are feminine? Are they denying their masculine nature?

The authors write about the risk of a man offering his strength in saying “a man’s basic sin is his choice to offer strength only in those situations where he knows things will go well” (140) and they say the same of a woman offering her beauty. Where do they get this belief? Where in the Bible does it talk of this sin? If it is so common (and in other places they label it as the greatest sin), why does the Bible neglect to mention it??

Towards the end of the chapter the authors write, “As we gaze on Jesus, as we behold his goodness, his glory, we are changed into his likeness, the most beautiful Person of all. “They looked to him and were radiant.” Ps 34:5”” (146) Once again, Jesus was a man, how can he be beautiful? And that verse is descriptive of a certain situation, not prescriptive of all of eternity. Plus, is says “THEY” not “she”. ALL can look upon Jesus and be radiant, it is not a purely feminine opportunity. The authors continue in talking about how a woman in love is most beautiful, instructing his to gaze at Jesus to obtain our beauty…in which case men who gaze upon Jesus would be receiving beauty as well, which is distinctively unmasculine.

The very last page of the chapter contains some statements the authors make without any attempt to support them, but simply put forth as if they are truth. The authors write “Unveiling our beauty really just means unveiling our feminine heart. It’s scary, for sure. That is why it is our greatest expression of faith….unveiling our beauty is also our greatest expression of hope..and unveiling our beauty is our greatest expression of love, because it is what the worlds most needs from us.” (147)

I'm not going to personally respond to those outrageous statements, but rather share some verses I found very quickly while searching the Bible for what is written in regards to what faith, hope and love are in God's eyes:

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. - 2 John 1:6

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. - 1 John 4:10

In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. - 1 John 5:3

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. - Hebrews 11:1

The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." "Yes it is, Lord," she said. "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table." Then Jesus said to her, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. – Matthew 15:25-28

So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: "Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well. – Luke 7:6-10

[Notice there is no mention of unveiling beauty in those verses]

On page 139 the authors write about a woman who was involved in a marriage with a verbally abusive marriage. They exalt her for “Rather than becoming hard and cynical, she remained soft...Instead of demanding, she would simply put her desire before him. I Instead of demanding, she simply would put her desire before him. "Don't you want more for us?" It was beautiful. Even though he chose not to respond she retained her feminine beauty and offered it as much as she could.” This is a terribly dangerous section of the book! I am not saying the woman should have divorced her husband, but this is an example of a time in which she should carefully set up boundaries to protect herself from him. She should not have allowed him to continue to mistreat her! She is more valuable and important than to endure such abuse. So many women allow themselves to be abused (physically, emotionally, spiritually) because they feel they are not allowed to protect themselves, but rather they must be submissive and quiet and sweet. This is not the same as turning the other cheek! Why does the church go beyond accepting abuse so far as to actually encouraging it to continue?? Why is the church not outraged at this treatment and stepping up and defending? Where is the church, where are the believers who are willing to live out the justice and freedom and healing our God so clearly desires for us to bring to this broken and hurting world?

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners…
- Isaiah 61:1

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
- Psalm 82:3-4

Learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.
- Isaiah 1:17

Captivating, Chapter Seven - Romanced

2009-11-09T10:58:00.007-05:00

After not having a lot of issues with the last chapter, the authors have come out once again to make huge statements without any Scriptural foundation at all which I find as alarming and dangerous as always.

The authors speak of modern day martyrs saying, “It is not obedience that is carrying out brothers and sisters – unwavering, steadfast, eyes ablaze – to their deaths. It is holy, fierce passion. Hearts afire. The root of all holiness is Romance” (113) While I am not in complete agreement with the first sentence, it does make an interesting point. I wonder, what do the authors know, sitting in their nice air-conditioned offices in middle class America about the lives and the motives of the hearts of those who are giving their lives in the name of the Gospel? In fact, what do I know about the lives of martyrs, both present and past? To look at a different side of it…what about those who are serving our country through the armed services, those who are giving their lives. Are they doing it out of obedience or out of passion and romance? I imagine there’s a combination of reasons (any military people out there want to chime in?) but I hazard to guess it is not a romantic passion that causes a soldier to follow the orders of his commanding officer, but respect and trust.

The last line of the passage I just quoted I find incredibly troubling, for the authors claim, “the root of all holiness is Romance.” (113) Instead of directly responding to that cryptic and wholly unsupported statement, I am going to turn to the Bible to share some verses relating to both holiness and obedience (for the authors just reported romance is more important than obedience)

1 Peter 1:13-16 “Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desire you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “be holy, because I am holy.”
Leviticus 19:1-2 “The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’”
Hebrews 11:8 “By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going”
Philippians 2:8 “And being found in appearance as a human being, [Jesus] humbled himself by coming obedient to death – even death on a cross.”
1 Sam 15:22 “But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.”
2 Co 7:1 “Therefore, since we have these promises [God will never leave us], dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.”

None of these verses about obedience or holiness mention a single word of passion or romance as the authors imply are necessary. Their statement about the root of holiness is huge, and completely without Scriptural backing. There are many verses the authors did not take into account in making their statement about the foundation of holiness, some of which I listed above.
The authors speak on pages 114-115 about the various metaphors that are used to describe our relationship with God, (including but not limited to potter and clay, sheep and shepherd, etc.) noting, “Have you noticed they ascend in a stunning way?” (114) Where are these metaphors of intimacy in “ascending” order? Nowhere. True, the metaphors are in the Bible (though the authors failed to provide references), but there is no mention of any being more important than another, the Bible does not say, “this metaphor is the best, while this one is second best,” nor do they precede in any chronological order.

In talking about romance, the Stasi writes about a time John “snuck away for some time along with God, down to the beach where he walked and prayed and finally sat in the sand to watch the waves upon the sea. (His idea of refreshment is “the wilder the better.”)” (116) First of all…what is “wild” about sitting on the beach? She goes on to explain how John saw a whale in the water and took it as a sign that God loved him. On the next page Stasi writes, “I sat on the sand and looked out to the sea..” (117). (Is she being wild? How can a woman be wild?!) While sitting there she prayed, “I know you love John, Jesus, but do you love me to? That much? If you do, may I have a whale too?” (117). Instead of getting a whale, however, she sees starfish on the beach, which she interprets to also be a sign from God. In this story of animals sent from God to “romance” the authors…it appears that whatever had happened on the beach they would have attributed as “from God”. If nothing had appeared, they would have explained it away as God wanting them to trust him or something of that sort. In a sinful, fallen world in which God has granted us free will, we cannot safely attribute every event in our lives to be from God as the authors frequently imply. That is not to say that God cannot/does not intervene, but we should not expect or demand he do so. (doesn't her prayer come dangerously close (possible going past) the command in Deut 6:16 which clearly states “do not put the Lord your God to the test…” ?)

The authors later write, “Reading George MacDonald several years ago, I came across and astounding thought. You’ve probably heard that there is in every human heart a place that God alone can fill…But what the old poet was saying was that there is also in God’s heart a place that you alone can fill…you are meant to fill a place in the heart of God no one and nothing else can fill. He longs for you” (page 120). This statement is a fantastic example of making huge statements that have absolutely no Scriptural foundation. The author is relying on a statement made by another human being and taking it as truth without comparing and contrasting it with the images given to us in the Bible. This statement they make implies God needs us to make His joy and satisfaction complete. If God felt this way, wouldn’t he have said it? I’m not saying God doesn’t love or and doesn’t desire relationship with us, but he does not need us, he does not crumble without our affection. He is strong and mighty and can exist apart from us. There are several other references in this chapter indicating Jesus needs us to worship him. All of this portrays an inaccurate understanding of God. God does not need us. That’s not to say he doesn’t want us, but the authors could benefit from a quick lesson in need vs. want.

The authors write about women and worship. They write, “Women minister something to the heart of God that men do not” (124) and follow it up with some selective stories in which women worshipped God in the Bible. While these stories are true, the authors are being selective and misrepresentative by ignoring passages that speak about men who worshiped. They boldly continue by saying “women hold a special place in the heart of God. A woman’s worship brings immense pleasure and a deep ministry.” (125) SO DO MEN! This statement is completely irrelevant. It’s like saying “women can breathe” as if it’s something special they along can do. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that women can worship in a way men cannot, or that women have a “special place” in the heart of God. God loves all equally and without judgment, regardless of gender.

The authors continue to take Scripture out of context in their constant references to the book Song of Songs to make their points. Even though this book clearly and specifically accounts Solomon's relationship with the Shulamite maiden, the authors use verse after verse as God speaking to women. The interpretation of this book is highly debated; it is not universally accepted that it is an allegory for our relationship with God. I am not completely disagreeing with this interpretation; I just am not completely convinced that is its primary purpose, or even secondary purpose. That being said, if the marriage relationship portrayed in Song of Solomon is supposed to be allegorical of our relationship with God, what about Ruth and Boaz, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Priscilla and Aquilla, Rachel and Jacob, Joseph and Mary, Rebekah and Isaac, Zacharias and Elizabeth, Ananias and Sapphira, Esther and Xerxes? What is it about Song of Solomon that makes their relationship more important, more representative, more real? There is nothing within the text of the book, which indicates its higher purpose, or value – that is something that is being read into it, which is not being read into other examples of relationships.

The authors make a continual mistake of confusing Biblical love with romance. Biblical love is defined as: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) I struggled to find a definition of “romance” which met the usage of the authors in this book. I found some definitions which seemed to come close to how the authors have been using it.. “a romantic spirit, sentiment, emotion, or desire., to court or woo romantically; treat with ardor or chivalrousness.” Romance is a good thing, but it tends to be based upon emotional or physical attraction, excitement, adventure and flattery rather than intimacy, close relationship and affection. Not once does the Bible talk about “romance” yet the authors place is above obedience and love? Why if it is such a crucial part of life does the word “romance” never appear in God’s word?

Captivating, Chapter Six - Healing the Wound

2009-11-03T10:55:00.004-05:00

I do not have a whole lot to comment on this chapter. It discusses the process for "healing the wound". While their methods are not blatantly harmful, it is harmful to attempt to conduct such intense therapy through a book rather than with the assistance of a trained therapist. There is much stigma against therapy and specifically medication in the world - especially the Christian community - but they are both useful things. Most people wouldn't look down on someone for going to the doctor when they broke their leg rather than trying to fix it by reading a book at home - so why is it wrong to go to a therapist? John Eldredge himself is a counselor, there is a need for counselors and those who believe all wounds can be healed simply ask God to heal the hurt are minimizing the damage and insulting the injured. God gave us minds to learn and study and apply that knowledge in a manner which is beneficial, such as doctors and counselors.

The authors spend a couple pages discussing how "So God has to thwart her. In love, he has to block her attempts until, wounded and aching, she turns to him and him alone for her rescue." (96) Where is the free will in that? Does it demonstrate love to turn to someone as a last resort? I believe God has the ability to "thwart" us, but it is generally against his nature as good and loving to "make what once was a great job miserable....bring hardship into her marriage, even to the breaking point...he disrupts our plans..." (97) The authors previously said "The Evil One had a hand in all that has happened to you" (90) and simultaneously are writing that God is causing these bad things to happen. God is about bringing us freedom and life (Ephesians 5:1, John 10:10), and while we may misinterpret events he means for good and we respond in a manner in which turns them against us, everything God has created is good, he is for us and not against (1 Timothy 4:4, Romans 8:31).

One specific instance in the book which I did have a problem with was a small issue, but it demonstrates the errors in thinking which the authors depend on in assuming that all things are related to gender, going so far as to twisting and removing scripture from context to prove this. The authors quote the following verses from Zech. 9:16-17:

16 The LORD their God will save them on that day as the flock of his people.
They will sparkle in his land like jewels in a crown.
17 How attractive and beautiful they will be!

The authors did not tell us, however, they were removing the next two lines of verse 17 which read, "Grain will make the young men thrive, and new wine the young women." This passage is clearly a gender neutral passage, clearly written to everyone, by the nature of the words "them" and "people" and the further examples relating to men and women. The authors don't specifically say this passage was written just to women, but by removing the line about men and speaking about the "feminine heart" directly before and after quoting this, the implication is clear. There are a multitude of other verses throughout the Bible which portray this same message of God's desire to save and rescue his people, but I believe the authors chose this one for its "fluffy" language in speaking of "sparkle..jewels...attractive..beautiful". As an additional sidenote, when read in context, this verse appears to be discussing the end times while the authors are applying it to today.

Captivating, Chapter Five - A Special Hatred

2009-10-25T10:48:00.005-04:00

This chapter starts off by recounting some stories of women who have been abuse. Following these stories the authors write, “The treatment of women down through the ages is not a noble history. It has noble moments in it, but taken as a while, women have endured what seems to be a special hatred since we left Eden.” (80). The whole chapter is about this “special hatred” they believe Satan has towards women, as they say again “It is simply to say that no explanation for the assault upon Eve and her daughters is sufficient unless it opens our eyes to the Prince of Darkness and his special hatred of femininity.” (83) Yet, the authors do not even attempt to provide a scriptural basis for this “special hatred”. Nowhere in the Bible is the faintest idea that Satan hates women more than men. True, Satan approached Eve in the Garden of Eden, but that doesn’t mean that he hates her the most.

They continue, “Satan fell because of his beauty. Now his heart for revenge is to assault beauty…But most especially, he hates Eve. Because she is captivating, uniquely glorious, and he cannot be…more than anything else in all creation, she embodies the glory of God. She allures the world to God.” (84) There is Biblical support for the statement Satan fell because of his beauty, however, as previously stated, there is nothing in the Bible which indicates Satan hates women more than men, or that his purpose is to assault “beauty”. There is nothing in the Bible to support the author’s belief that Satan hates women because they are beautiful.

The authors continue their attempt at saying “The Evil One also hates Eve because she gives life.” (84) It is true the Bible says that Satan came to “steal, kill and destroy” but I do not think that means that he hates women because they can bear children. If he hated women because they give life, then he would need to hate men because they’re a necessary part of that giving of life! A woman can not bear children without a man being involved.

In a summation of the previous two quotations, the authors say “..Eve incarnates the Beauty of God and she gives life to the world. Satan’s bitter heart cannot bear it. He assaults her with a special hatred. History removes any doubt about this.” (85) True, women have been treated horribly through much of history, but I still have a doubt they claim I should not have. Men have also been treated poorly, men have been abused. Men lose their lives in wars, women usually do not. Men have been killed as a part of genocides; men have died from disease and illness. Men have not been excluded from the result of the evil that entered the world through Satan.

The authors continue to feel the need to distort scripture to support what they observe in the world and what they believe. Would it be too much to simply observe “women have been abused throughout history” rather than trying to force scripture to prove it?

There are some positive moments within this chapter, such as this statement, “You might know that through the thousands of years of Jewish history recorded in the Old Testament, Jewish women were considered property with no legal rights (as they were and are in many cultures). They were not allowed to study the Law, nor to formally educate their children. They had a segregated place in the synagogue. It was common practice for a Jewish man to add to his morning prayers, “That you, God for not making me a Gentile, a woman, or a slave.”” (81) In understanding and interpreting the way in which the Bible describes the role of women, it is crucial to understand the role that women had during that time period. Women were treated as nothing. Taking this into consideration makes it all the more revolutionary the way Jesus treated women, the way he interacted with them. The common Jewish prayer makes Ephesians 3:26-28 all the more ground breaking, “So in Christ Jesus you are all Children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” Using the same words that were used in the prayer in this verse ensures that the magnitude of it’s radical message would be quite obvious to the men who had their whole lives prayed that prayer. The authors could benefit from reading this verse as it defies the foundation of their belief that men and women are different to their core, that gender is the most important part of us.

The authors provide examples from movies in which the woman is being attacked by the villain, such as Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, they say “Think of the great stories – in nearly all of them, the villain goes after the Hero’s true love.” (85). However, the authors appear to forget or overlook the fact that these are stories. They have been created for our entertainment. There would be no story if the woman was rescued from nothing. No, there must be a conflict; there must be a need for a rescue, which is the storyline that has been created and is followed. Additionally, this is an example of the author’s one sidedness in ignoring the contrary evidence (a logical fallacy) for there are also many storylines in which the man is the subject of attack, but the authors conveniently forget to mention those. (Think how many men are attacked at some point in The Lord of the Rings which is a movie the authors so frequently quote…yet when are any women seriously attacked?)

At the conclusion of the chapter the author’s quote Isaiah 62:1-5 which is a beautiful passage that demonstrates what God’s heart is, however, they took it a step too far in adding their own feminized comments into it. I do not think it is necessary to add these comments to make God’s (gender neutral) words more powerful or more relevant. (authors comments are italicized)

² The nations will see your righteousness,
and all kings your glory; [your beauty]
you will be called by a new name
that the mouth of the LORD will bestow.

³ You will be a crown of splendor in the LORD's hand, [the crown of creation]
a royal diadem in the hand of your God.

⁵ As a young man marries a maiden, [he pursues her, romances her]
so will your sons marry you;
as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,
so will your God rejoice over you. [you are lovely]

The authors presume glory and beauty to me synonyms once again, they equate a gender neutral statement calling all humans the crown of splendor as they previous called women to be the crown of creation, they interpret marries to be pursuing and romancing, and lastly and possibly most dangerous, they follow "your God will rejoice of you" with "you are lovely" as if to mean that God only rejoices over those who are lovely. Once again, these passage from Isaiah are not written to women and do not need to be "specially" translated to hold value. I believe God's word stands alone, it is real and powerful and does not need the Eldredge's to fluff it up in order for women to ingest it.

Captivating, Chapter Four - Wounded

2009-10-20T10:38:00.001-04:00

This chapter continues to expand upon many of the flaws which I have pointed out in previous chapters, most specifically the authors assumptions that they are qualified to speak for all women, the manner in which the authors provide lists of “feminine characteristics” that women are to attain to, while denying they are doing that very thing, misuse of Scripture by making incorrect assumptions and pulling verses out of context, as well as appealing to how things are to make statements about how things should be. I will attempt to shorten my responses to each chapter by not responding to each occurrence of these flaws, but that is not to say that are not existing in subsequent chapters, or that I will not sometimes need to point them out.

The authors argue “Women learn from their mothers what it means to be a woman, and from their fathers the value that a woman has – the value they have as a woman.” (61) While I agree that women (and men) learn about who they are and what role they play in the world from their parents (for better or worse), I think it is a mistake to be completely accepting of this way in which the Eldredge’s believe the world is set up. As a Christian, I look to GOD to know who I am, and who I am and what value I have as a HUMAN who happens to be a woman. When a woman discovers that she is pregnant, she does not instantly know what gender her child will be. That is a secondary item. We are human first, gender second.

“From our mothers we receive many, many things, but foremost among them are mercy and tenderness. When my sons were young and got hurt, their dad would say something encouraging like “cool wound.” I would hold them close and tend their injuries.” (62) Here Stasi is pointing out that John does not provide proper care to his injured sons, and somehow it’s good and appropriate for him to do so? I think this is a common occurrence, and I see three possible causes of this phenomenon: 1. Men do not know how respond appropriately because they were never taught. 2. Men do not feel they are allowed to respond appropriately. 3. Men do not want to respond appropriately. Since there are men who work as doctors and nurses, I know it can’t be that men are incapable of providing appropriate medical care, so what is the reason that it falls into the hands of mothers to provide that care for their children? (Note - Both approaches demonstrated by the Eldredges are sufficient for treating such injuries - depending on the situation and the child involved. It's all about the situation. For a father to always respond to his sons in a "cool wound" sort of way does not give the sons permission to hurt. I also would be willing to guess that if John Eldredge had a daughter, he would not respond in the same way, but be more nurturing and gentle. I don't think a child's gender should determine the treatment they receive following some sort of hurt (physical, emotional, etc), and I also don't think a parent's gender (or coach, teacher, etc) should determine how they respond, either. Each person and each situation is individual and unique, and each person should receive treatment based upon the specifics, not purely their gender.)

Next the authors talk about “Our Question” (referring to the question they believe all women are asking, something to the extent of ‘do you think I’m beautiful’). They say, “But as far as our Question – that is primarily answered by our fathers.” (62) Why? They do not provide an answer as to why the question is primarily answered by fathers in their text. This places a lot of unnecessary pressure on fathers, saying that they’re responsible for answering the question to validate women. Interestingly enough, in Wild at Heart, John Eldredge claims that fathers answer the son's "question" as well. It is hard not to interpret the fact that the authors see the father as the seminal figure in both the son's and the daughter's life as claiming that the father is simply more important than the mother. If women are supposed to be the “grand finale, the crown of creation” why do the FATHERS have all the power here?

“Little girls need the tender strength of their fathers.” (62) This is an example of the way in which the authors look at a universal existence and attempt to separate it into genders...strength is strength regardless of whether it is shown by men or women, but the authors attempt to masculinize compassion by calling it “tender strength” instead of simply calling it what it is, which would cause men to ‘question their masculinity’ at having a ‘feminine’ trait.

“Numerous studies have shown that women who report a close and caring relationship with their fathers, who received assurance, enjoyment, and approval from them during childhood, suffer less from eating disorders or depression” (62-63) I imagine that similar studies exist for relationships with mothers, just because one side exists doesn’t exclude the other. Plus, why suddenly the need to attempt to back up your beliefs? And where’s the real reference to these numerous studies?

The authors continue to describe manners in which people have received “wounds”, spending equal time on the fathers and mothers sections, despite previously giving fathers the responsibility to answer “our Question”

“The wounds that we received as young girls did not come alone. They brought messages with them, message that struck at the core of our hearts, right in the place of our Question. Our wounds strike at the core of our femininity. The damage is done to our feminine hearts through the wounds we received is made worse by the horrible things we believe about ourselves as a result” (68) I do agree that many people receive wounds as children and have false beliefs about themselves as children that affects their entire lives. However, I do not believe that these wounds strike us at our gender, rather than simply our hearts. The authors continually elevate gender above all else, and I continue to point out that I am human first, woman second. We have wounds, they aren’t masculine or feminine, they are simply wounds. Suppose there’s a family in which the father has an affair and leaves behind his daughter and son to be raised by their mother. The children BOTH have been abandoned, they’ve BOTH received the wound of being discarded by their father, it doesn’t matter what their gender is. It would do much to create unity within the church and within the WORLD to allow us to see similarities between the genders rather than focusing on (and creating) differences.

Captivating, Chapter Three - Haunted By A Question

2009-10-11T10:33:00.002-04:00

Eve – What Happened?

The beginning of chapter three talks about a variety of struggles faced by women. The authors ask “Why do so few women have anything close to a life of romance?” (44). While I do understand that they are talking about the general disappointment many feel regarding their lives, I do wish to point out a possible cause for women not having “anything close to a life of romance”: many women are sitting around waiting for their knight in shining armor to swoop in and rescue them from their boring existence and take them on magical adventures. And while these women are sitting and waiting they are missing out on many great opportunities to live life by themselves – as well as to seek out that partner in their life instead of passively waiting.

The authors continue to talk about how many women feel in saying “And women are tired. We are drained…the weariness of women comes from lives that are crammed with routine, with chores, with hundreds of demands…. We struggle to know if we matter at all” (44-45). The authors do a good job of acknowledging a lot of feelings many women experience in day to day life. (it is worth noting that many of the feelings of weariness and insignificance are faced by men and women alike, it is not unique or special to women)

The authors attempt to make a connection between the insecurity many women feel with Eve. But what about Eve… I cannot figure out that part of their argument. They say “Every woman is haunted by Eve in the core of her being. She knows, if only when she passes a mirror, that she is not what she was meant to be” (46). While I agree many women may feel insufficient in this manner, I do not see what this has to do with Eve and the authors fail to explain this statement they make.

Next the authors write “You see, every little girl-and every little boy- is asking one fundamental question. But they are very different questions…[the boy] was made in the image of a warrior God. Nearly all a man does is fueled by his search for validation.” (46) As I had mentioned in regards to last chapters statement about the statement previously made about the struggle with self-worth for women versus men that “there is something deeper to this struggle for women, and far more universal.” (21) I would challenge the authors to explain how they can simultaneously claim that “nearly all a man does is fueled by his search for validation” (46) and “there is something deeper to this struggle for women” (21) as the two clearly contradict themselves. I think the REAL point is that the struggle with self-worth is one common to men AND women for we are all HUMAN first, and separated by gender SECOND. Also, how is it that men were made in the image of a different God (a “warrior God”) than women, if we were all made in the image of the same God?

The Fall of Eve

The authors quote Genesis 3:1-6 to describe what happened in the fall of creation. They argue that Eve sinned because she did not trust God’s heart to take care of her. John again quotes himself from Wild at Heart in saying this of Adam allowing Even to sin… “He won’t risk, he won’t fight and he won’t rescue Eve…he denied his very nature and went passive.” (48) I have quite a few issues with this statement. First, if Adam’s nature is to be an active warrior (as previously described in pages 36-37 of the last chapter), then why did God not mention that in Genesis 2 when he provided Adam with the rules of Earth – that being simply to not to eat of the tree? Or, in Genesis 1:28-30 where it says of man and woman, “God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.” These commands were given to BOTH Adam and Eve, they were given equal authority over the earth, and there was no mention of anyone’s need to be a warrior or protect anyone. Nowhere prior to the fall does it say anything about anyone being assertive over anyone. So why do the authors believe that Adam “denied his very nature and went passive” when we have no reason to believe that that is contrary to his nature, or contrary to how he was commanded to live? Second, if Adam’s nature and role was to be Eve’s protector, why is the first sin committed Eve eating of the fruit, NOT Adam being passive?

Following the quoting of Wild at Heart the authors continue on the topic of man’s passivity in saying “Men, just when we need them to come through for us…check out. They disappear, go silent and passive. “He won’t talk to me,” is many a woman’s lament.” (48) I find it ironic that they can simultaneously claim that WOMEN are by nature more relational than men, but can allow women to complain that men won’t talk. Maybe this woman’s man isn’t talking to her because he’s being told by John Eldredge that a woman’s role is to be relational, and not a man’s!

The Curse

At this point the authors quote Genesis 3:16-18 and begin to talk about the “curse” that they believe God put on man and woman. However, as I read these verses I see something different… “To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.”

I do not see any mentioning of “curse” in regards to woman. God says “I will make…” but he does not say “I curse you” or “cursed is...” in the way he curses the ground or he curses the serpent in the portion not quoted. The authors interpret these verses as follows “Woman is cursed with loneliness (relational heartache), with the urge to control (especially her man), and with the dominance of men (which is not how things are meant to be and we are not saying it is a good thing – it is a fruit of the Fall and a sad fact of history)” (50)

First, the belief that woman is “cursed” is not within the text. God is stating the consequences for their sin; he is not saying “I curse you”. He is not saying “this is how the world should be”, he is saying “as a result of your sin, this is the way the world will now exist”. Second, their interpretation of the “curse” includes that woman is cursed “with the urge to control”. However, that interpretation isn’t supported by the Biblical text. The conjunctive “and” suggests that “desire” leads or is related to the domination…a better interpretation is that the woman’s desire for her husband will dominate her and lead to domination by her husband. The Message interprets this verse to say “You’ll want to please your husband, but he’ll lord it over you” which puts a drastically different spin on the use of the word “desire”. In this verse the authors interpret “desire” to mean “urge to control” rather than the other (more likely) possibility that it means desire such as longing, craving, want. How often in your day-to-day life do you interpret “desire” to mean “control”? If you’re reading a poem in which a lover speaks of his desire for his love, we take that to be a positive thing, a loving them…yet this use of desire is interpreted by the authors in a drastically different light!

It is crucial to highlight what the authors say about women being dominated by men, “(which is not how things are meant to be and we are not saying it is a good thing – it is a fruit of the Fall and a sad fact of history)” (50). They make an excellent point here. Women are not MEANT to be dominated, as has been so true throughout time. It can be seen throughout most of time and within most cultures that women are treated as second class citizens, as property, as inferior beings. There is nothing in the story of creation from which to presume that men are to be dominant over women – to be the leaders of women. God appoints man and woman together to rule over the animals, but at no point does God tell Adam that he is to rule over Eve.

The problem that comes with the idea that women want to “control” their husbands is that women will think they need to become more and more passive and please their husbands which will actually make the problem worse…women are dominated because they desire their husband too much, so trying harder to do so will only increase the domination!

The last passage of this section of the chapter says, “When a man goes bad, as every man has in some way gone bad after the fall, what is most deeply marred is his strength. He either becomes a passive, weak man – strength surrendered – or a violent, driven man – strength unglued. When a woman falls from grace, what is most deeply marred is her tender vulnerability, beauty that invites life. She becomes dominating, controlling woman – or a desolate, needy, mousy woman.” (50) So…what the authors are really trying to say is that when people go bad, people become either passive/weak or violent/controlling, it is the same for men and women, they just use different words to say what is happening. The authors are looking at the same situation but seeing it how they want to see it, so it fits within their construction of how they believe the world is supposed to be. This all goes back to the fact that men and woman really aren’t as different as we’re told they are. (again, I am NOT saying there are no differences!)

Dominating Women

Several pages are devoted to describing the “dominating woman” as someone who “is in charge…there is nothing merciful about her, nothing tender and certainly nothing vulnerable. She has forsaken essential aspects of her femininity.” (51) The authors use several movie references to describe what they believe a dominating woman looks like, and continue to make lists of the traits a woman is supposed to have by indicating what ones this woman has forsaken.

One things that has always bothered me is the way in which when a woman gets married she suddenly loses her identity, and even her own name. And I’m not talking about a woman changing her last name; I’m talking about a woman calling herself “Mrs. John Dashwood” (51). This is the woman I believe has forsaken her femininity, for she has traded her own name to fall beneath her husband, becoming invisible, completely dependent upon him for who she is.

The authors argue that “sure, a calculating, heartless man makes a villain. But somehow it’s even worse when she’s a woman.” (52) Why is this? Well, the authors do not give any reason or explanation for their irrational statement. To me it seems that the authors are insulting women for no reason at all, which is interesting because at many other times in the book they appear to exalt women above all else.

Next comes another attempt by the authors to pass their own beliefs for something that is Biblical when they say “but beneath it all, behind it all, is a simple truth: women dominate and control because they fear vulnerability” (52) and follow this up with quoting Romans 14:23 to say “Whatever is not from faith is sin." It is dangerous for the authors to quote an unrelated Bible verse in an attempt to make inappropriate connections it seem as if the Bible supports their assumptions about how all women act and feel.

The authors say “What we are saying is that far too many women forfeit their femininity in order to feel safe and in control. Their strength feels more masculine than feminine. There is nothing inviting or alluring, nothing tender or merciful about them.” (52) What is the difference between masculine and feminine strength? Do the authors realize that are yet again providing a list of traits that their readers are going to assume they must display? What are men violating when they fear vulnerability? Many men are petrified of vulnerability because they’ve never learned, never been allowed to express themselves but through strength and violence.

Now, much of what is said throughout this section I feel is generally true and accurate, if the authors would take out their attempts to connect it to the Bible, allow it to be gender neutral and not attempt to speak for every woman.

Desolate Women

Next the authors talk about their opposite of a dominating woman, a desolate woman. They describe her as “desolate, needy, far too vulnerable” (53). On pages 54-55 Stasi talks about women who hide because they are afraid, quoting Genesis 3:10 that says “I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid” which I find to be quite ironic because that verse is spoken by a MAN, not a woman, but is used to support their belief that this is a behavior exhibited by woman.

Furthermore, the authors say of these desolate woman, “We relinquish major decisions to others.” (56) Are they surprised that women act this way? I am surprised when women DON’T act in that manner because if she has been raised in a Christian home or attended church for any amount of time, it is very likely that it has been indoctrinated into her that as a woman she is not capable of making proper decision on her own, in fact, she is NOT ALLOWED to make decisions and must relinquish those to her husband, to her father, to her pastor – to any man because he is wiser and better able to make decisions by default simply because he is a man. The church teaches passivity, the church produces desolate woman and pronounces them good.

Now again, as with the section on dominating women, this section has some interesting insights and does a good job of describing the manner in which many woman live at times.

I spent many years on the “desolate” side of things. I was taught that as a female in the church I would always be second best to the men, and so I accepted that my only roles to fill would be to bake pies, to teach Sunday school or work in the nursery. For whatever reason, I for many years hated making big decisions. I’m not sure when or why or what, but I remember only applying to one college because I didn’t want to have to choose between two. (luckily I was accepted!) Once in college, I spent even more time with individuals who firmly believed that a woman’s role was that of passivity – a woman could not initiate even a friendship with a man, and CERTAINLY not romantic relationships. I was further taught that once married a woman’s role was to be a helper, to be fully submissive and allow the husband to make all the decisions, even if they were BAD decisions, I was to be supportive of that. I was even taught that these role distinctions were to be demonstrated in friendships and dating relationships.

And it was easy, being passive. It was safe. I didn’t realize how terrified I was of being assertive, of standing up for myself – of making a simple decision, for quite some time. I remember a specific time shortly after Ryan and I were engaged in which we were returning home from church on a Sunday morning and he asked if I wanted to go cook lunch at his house or at my house. I said “I don’t care” which was my typical response when he asked my opinion on something – and for the most part it was true that I did not have any preference. Ryan continued to ask what I wanted to do, and left the decision up to me because he wanted my input. We ended up sitting in the care for quite some time as I cried, thoroughly terrified at the thought of having to think and act for myself. “This isn’t what a girl is supposed to do! He’s supposed to do everything for me” is what a part of me was saying.

I am so very, very grateful for the patience that Ryan has shown to me, especially in the months leading up to our marriage. He was so supportive and encouraging to me, empowering me to stand up for myself in situations in which I was being treated poorly and I wanted to back down and let it all continue. He pushed me to share my opinion on things that I didn’t think it could possibly matter. In the process of learning how to make decisions, we even initiated a schedule for what days I would make decisions and what days he would so I could practice intentionally.

I am no longer stuck in the desolate land of passivity which the modern church so often sends women as I was fortunate enough to find Ryan who loves me enough to allow me to not just exist in our relationship but be an equal participant, who daily lives out the promise within our declaration on our wedding day to “love [me] as a person, respect [me] as an equal, submit [himself] to [me] as is fitting in the Lord” rather than lord over me as the church would not only permit but encourage him to do.

Captivating, Chapter Two - What Eve Alone Can Tell

2009-10-04T09:36:00.006-04:00

Before I begin, I want to reiterate that I do not believe there are no differences between men and woman. I believe every person is unique and individual, whether male or female. Yes, there are tendencies within genders to gravitate towards certain activities and emotions; however there is no way to know which tendencies are the result of nature and which are the result of nurture. I’d also like to point out that similar tendencies exist within generational and cultural groups; they are not exclusive to genders. I think it is dangerous to make strict generalizations about any group for it is likely to cause shame and isolation to those who do not fit within its rules.

-----------

Chapter two is called “What Eve Alone Can Tell” and begins by Stasi telling about her desire to be a princess, a hidden princess as in movies such as Pretty Woman, Ever After, A Cinderella Story and Maid in Manhattan. She then begins to speak about the shame that women feel due to the distance between “the desire of a woman’s heart and the realities of a woman’s life” (21) and states about a woman’s struggle with self-worth, “now this is not to say that men don’t also struggle with their sense of self worth. But there is something deeper to this struggle for women, and far more universal.” (21) First of all, I find this statement very ironic in that the authors believe that women struggle with their sense of self-worth more deeply than men do, considering that the “companion book” Wild at Heart states a man’s deepest question is “Do I have what it takes?” If “do I have what it takes” isn’t about self-worth, than what is it about? Aside from the authors inconsistency regarding this topic, I find it just plain wrong. How do they know it is universal? Have the authors visited every corner of our universe through all of time to discuss this issue with every woman? Also, that is a selfish statement and condemning statement to put on men. Men have struggles, too. Men struggle with shame and self-worth, too…they just are not permitted to disclose this as it would be “weak and unmanly." If by “self-worth” the authors are referring to the woman’s perception of her physical appearance, well, in that case I’ll agree that as a whole, women in our culture struggle more deeply with that (although that is not to say that men don’t struggle with self-worth regarding their physical appearance!).

The Crown of Creation

(I am using the chapter subtitles the authors use) Next the authors spend several pages artistically recounting the story of creation from Genesis 1 and 2. After they quote Genesis 2:21-23 regarding the creation of woman, the authors proclaim, “She is the crescendo, the final, astonishing work of God…She is the Master’s finishing touch…given the way that creation unfolds, how it builds to ever high and higher works of art, can there be any doubt that Eve is the crown of creation?” (25) Now…I must have missed something, or maybe my Bible “forgot” to add some of those details, because the way I read it is this: “So the Lord caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:21-23, TNIV). I’ve read those verses many times, and I’m just not seeing where God says “Ah-ha! There she is my finishing touch, the crown of creation!” I really don’t see woman to be the final, astonishing work of God…I believe that something that took place many years later could qualify as the final astonishing work of God, that being the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. An account of this crucial event is found in the Gospel, and includes finality words that are not found in Genesis “When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30, emphasis mine) So, where in the account of creation does God say “It is finished.” Nowhere. Not once. No, it says “By the sixth day God has finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.” (Genesis 2:2 , emphasis mine). Notice it says the work he had been doing rather than that he had finished everything. At the end of the work day I finish the work I’m currently working on, file my papers, straighten up my desk before I leave my office – but that doesn’t mean that the last paper I put away is done forever, or that the last thing I work on is so greatly more important than anything else.

Additionally, the story of creation is just that – a story. It isn’t a sermon, it isn’t commandments, it is a narrative. The authors repeatedly fail to take account of this fact, often acting as if the creation narrative is meant to be literal instructions to us today. The Bible was not written to us directly, and therefore will not always be directly applicable to us today in our world. It was written by people in a drastically different time and culture and in a vast array of literary styles including poetry, narratives, epistles, parables, law, prophets and more. Failure to understand the genres of the Bible is a huge and dangerous interpretive mistake that is made by many, and specifically, a mistake that is made repeatedly by the authors of this book.

Romance and Relationships: The Answer to Loneliness

In this section the authors put forth that women “are relationship creatures to their cores” (27). They attempt to support this claim by observing their own differences in that if you want to know how other people are doing you should call Stasi, not John. They claim that “this is so second nature, so assumed among women, that it goes unnoticed by them” (27). I must have missed that memo, because I don’t fit the bill. As I said before, I’m not an exceptionally outgoing or extroverted person, I tend to stick to myself and have very few deep friendships. The authors talk about at their Christmas party the men talk about concrete and the women talk about sex after menopause, noting the gender division. If you were to attend a family gathering (or any gathering, really) with me and Ryan, you would notice that he goes against the flow of the typical gender segregation and is involved in conversation with others, usually to a greater extent than I am. I can even think of times that I’ve left conversations to go watch football because I find being social to be too exhausting. I know that I’m not the only exception to the authors statements about how all things are, but even if it was just me who was different, when statements such as “all women” and “every woman” are being made, that does not leave any room for exceptions.

The authors continue on about relationships and states that woman “bears the image of God, but in a way that only the feminine can speak. What can we learn from her? God wanted to reveal something about himself, so he gave us Eve.” (28). Ok, a couple questions I would like to ask the authors. First of all, where is the list God made of his own qualities and characteristics in which he sorted them into columns of “masculine” and “feminine”? Second of all, the authors believe that the fact that it was “not good” for man to be alone and so God created woman means that woman is relational in nature….how do they overlook the fact that it was MAN who was in need of relationship? MAN was the one not good alone, the one that needed companionship, so MAN must therefore be the relational one. I believe that all humans have a relationship side to them, to varying degrees obviously, but the desire for friendship and relationship is not unique to woman alone.

On page 29 John Eldredge actually quotes Wild at Heart to explain some of the points he was attempting to make in Captivating. I know this isn’t a research paper, and clearly the authors do not feel a need to use legitimate evidence to back up their bold statements that are supposed to apply to every human that has ever lived, but really, the best they can do is reuse their previous attempts to prove their point? In his own quotation, John talks about God’s desire to be loved and wanted by us, and that he came to that conclusion by “hearing the heart-cry of women” (29). This is again separating the characteristics of God into lists of feminine and masculine without any Biblical reference or support.

At the beginning of the book the authors tell us “This book is not about what you ought to do or who you ought to be. It's about discovering who you already are, as a woman" (19). Yet, by reading on you will find several lists of “what you ought to do or who you ought to be such as “She is inviting. She is vulnerable. She is tender. She embodies mercy. She is also fierce and fiercely devoted….Tender and inviting, intimate and alluring, fiercely devoted.” (30). And then just a few pages later, another to-do list, “…women are endowed with fierce devotion, an ability to suffer great hardships, a vision to make the world a better place” (33). These are just two examples of where the authors tell us what a woman is like, while in their introduction they claim they want to “recover essential femininity without falling into stereotypes, or worse, ushering more pressure and shame upon our readers” (x). How can they reconcile these lists of qualities that their readers are now reading and trying to become as anything other their stereotypes, pressure and shame?

An Adventure to Share

This section begins by discussing the translation of ezer kenego (helper) that is found in Genesis 2:18 “The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”” I think the authors do a better job than most at their interpretation. They point out the other instances in the Bible in which that phrase is used, and they are all referring to times in which God is that helper…for example “I lift my eyes up to the hills-where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth” (Psalm 121:1-2). This proper interpretation is necessary to fight against the oppression of women who feel that their job in life is to be the “helper” of their husband, to be his servant and spend her days attending to his every need. No, woman is so much more than that. She is necessary and she is equal.

The authors quote a scene from The Lord of the Rings in which the female character has an important role in the adventure. They then say “The longing in the heart of a woman to share life together as a great adventure- that comes straight from the heart of God, who also longs for this” (33). Yet, the authors are unable to provide a scriptural basis for this statement about something that is coming from the heart of God. I am uncomfortable reading a statement about what God has done for me and what he wants for himself without having any evidence to stand on.

Beauty to Unveil

The remainder of the chapter discusses beauty, as the authors believe that every woman desires to have a beauty to unveil. They write “Beauty is the essence of God. The first way we know this is through nature, the world God has given us. Scripture says that the created world is filled with the glory of God (Isa. 6:3). In what way? Primarily through its beauty” (34). I looked up Isaiah 6:3 that the authors reference as their first proof that beauty is the essence of God. "And they were calling to one another: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory." (Isaiah 6:3). Interesting. The verse doesn’t mention beauty. Not once. It says the earth is full of God’s glory, but the authors make a huge jump to ascertain that glory = beauty. The authors believe that nature is primarily beautiful because beauty is the essence of God and he believes that beauty is the essence of God because he believes that nature is primarily beautiful. It made me dizzy to write that last sentence for it is a textbook example of circular logic.

On pages 36-37 the authors devoted much time to discussing the presence of women in artwork versus men in artwork. They say the reason men are not painted at rest is that “Adam is captured best in motion, doing something. His essence is strength in action. This is what he speaks to the world. He bears the image of God, who is a warrior” (36). I’ll stop there for a second to point out this is another time in which God must have his secret list of qualities, and one of them under the masculine column is “warrior”, for men and women BOTH bear the image of God, and it is the SAME GOD for both…the authors are just choosing to assign separate qualities to each gender. They continue on by saying “On behalf of God, Adam says, “God will come through. God is on the move.” That is why a passive man is so disturbing. His passivity defies his very essence. It violates the way he bears God’s image. A passive man says, “God will not come through. He is not acting on your behalf.” (37) Sooo… men, you’ve got to spend the rest of your life on the go because if you rest, because if you sit for a moment, I will worry that God isn’t going to come through to me (this is highly sarcastic…but taken to it's logical progression, that is in fact what the authors believe).

The authors then describe that a woman would not look right to be artistically captured in any situation other than at rest, and they say “There is no agenda here, no social stigmatizing or cultural pressure. This is true across cultures and down through time. What have artists seen that we have not? Eve speaks something differently to the world than Adam does. Through her beauty” (37). Yes, there is agenda and stigma here! Just because these roles were necessary in the more violent and less developed times in our history does not mean they are still relevant – or that they are SUPPOSED to be there. A woman is expected to be beautiful; a man is expected to be strong. Both genders are capable of both traits when permitted to express it. On the following page it says of a woman who is not at rest says to the world “All is not well. Things are not going to turn out all right” (38). In these statements they essentially say that woman must never work, because a woman who is not as rest says "all is not well" and they also say a man must never stop working because a passive man says "God will not come through" Also, what does this say for a woman who is "moving and active" in an adventure? She is not at rest and therefore cannot be beautiful.

Why Beauty Matters

The authors give an excellent example of how culturally exclusive their viewpoint is in writing “A woman's breast is among the loveliest of all God's works" (39). Yes, in our culture that is true, but what about in Africa where women do not wear shirts and that it is commonplace and the breast is just the same as any other part of the body? Would those individuals agree with the author’s statement? If the authors would acknowledge that they are writing within the confines of our culture I would not be bothered by their assumptions, but they have explicitly said that their beliefs are cross-cultural and throughout time.

I will briefly respond to one final passage from this chapter, one of the passages that I find the most disturbing…“Beauty is, without question, the most essential and the most misunderstood of all God’s qualities.” (40) Seriously? You’re telling me that God somehow managed to forget to mention this great truth in the Bible? All his talk about grace and love and forgiveness, how did he pass over the fact that his most essential quality was beauty? Why did he wait until 2005 to allow John Eldredge to reveal this great truth to the world? Did I miss the place in the Bible that says “But the greatest of these is beauty”? I find it quite concerning that the authors, building upon their own beliefs about who God is can make such a bold statement to say that the most important thing about God is beauty. I do not believe that to be so. I believe God has many essential qualities that are described in the Bible such as “God is love” (1 John 4:8), “God is faithful” (1 Corinthians 10:13), “God is not unjust” (Hebrews 6:10). While we can never fully know or understand the depth of God’s character and his mysterious ways, it is important that we remain within the text of the Bible to learn what he has said about himself rather than ascribing our own wants and desires to who we think he should be.

Captivating , Chapter One - The Heart of a Woman

2009-09-28T07:27:00.008-04:00

This book, subtitled “Unveiling the mystery of a woman’s soul” is written by a husband and wife, John and Stasi Eldredge. The premise of the book is that there are three specific desires that are innate to all women. It begins by John writing “We are on holy ground. Writing a book for men (Wild at Heart) was a fairly straightforward proposition. Not that men are simpletons. But they are the less complicated of the two genders trying to navigate love and life together. Both men and women know this to be true.” (ix) If I were a man, I would find this statement rather insulting. I think both men and women are complicated, however, our culture allows only women to act upon this. And I also feel that the authors' use of the phrase "holy ground" is quite unjustified. In the Bible God calls where his presence resides holy ground...a book about women does not compare. (See Exodus 3:5, Psalm 24:3, Habakkuk 2:20 for examples of places in which the word “holy” was used to describe a place)

In the next three pages Stasi narrates a story in which she, John and their children go canoeing and encounter a dangerous situation. She says, “I was no longer Stasi. I was Sacagawea, Indian Princess of the West, a valiant and strong woman” (3). I enjoyed this introductory story, I enjoyed the excitement and the way in which she allowed herself to be “valiant and strong”, rather than being passive and princess-y as most Christian women tend to be. So, I was shocked when I turned the page and felt I had entered an entirely new book which contained the flowery language of skirts and princes which fills other books written for women, and vast assumptions and declarations about what a woman is supposed to be.

The book does provide some appropriate insights into the ways in which the church and society tend look down on and to treat women, as if their purpose is that of a sweet, disciplined, composed and quiet housewife. On page 8, however, the authors boldly announce, “Whatever it means to bear God’s image you do as a woman. Female. That’s how and where you bear his image…you are a woman to your soul, to the very core of your being”. I find this declaration that my soul has a gender to be quite disturbing and hazardous. If I bear God’s image as a woman, do my other traits do the same? Do I bear God’s image as a graduate of Miami University – does that aspect of my identity reach to my soul and the very core of my being? Gender is seen on a physiological level; as is my eye color, so does my eye color exist as deeply as my gender? Why gender and not other characteristics? Where is the line drawn, and who decides where it goes? Does gender really go that deeply to divide us? How do the authors reconcile this belief with Ephesians 3:26-28 that says, “So in Christ Jesus you are all Children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (emphasis mine).

The first desire the authors state all women have is a desire to be romanced. Stasi shares that when she was a little girl she loved to play “kidnapped and rescued” and watched movies in which the girl was rescued by a hero. She says “I simply loved feeling wanted and fought for. This desire is set deep in the heart of every little girl-and every woman” (9). This is one of many instances in the book in which the authors use “every woman” when stating characteristics, traits, desires and feelings. I find this statement to be troubling beyond the overgeneralization used within it. I think it also contains an undergeneralization. Why do they believe that only women want to be loved and romanced? Stasi talks about when she and John were dating and he wrote her poetry and gave her special gifts, stating “I loved being romanced” (10). I believe that men also feel this way, whether they are permitted to express it or not. Sure, I love when Ryan brings me flowers or plans a special evening, but I know that he equally loves when I romance him and pursue him. There are many who believe that it is wrong for a woman to “pursue” a man, that it creates an unhealthy relationship. This will come about again later in the book, but what about the story of Ruth when she pursues Boaz? (see Ruth 3:7) What about Shulamuth in the Song of Solomon when she is initiating in the relationship with Solomon? (see Song of Solomon 3:1-4,5:6, 7:11)

The first paragraph on page 11 I find to be quite contradictory as well as socially stigmatizing. “When I was a little girl, I used to love World War II movies. I imagined myself being in them. I dreamed of growing up, braiding my hair and then tucking it up under my helmet. I planned to disguise my gender so that I could join in” (11). So, Stasi writes that she would watch war movies and desire to join in the fighting. And yet, just two pages before talk about how all little girls love movies in which they are rescued by the man who is fighting. How can it be both ways, the girl being rescued and fighting? Also, how is it that the movies that Stasi loves to watch are because she is feminine, and yet a man can love the same move but apparently for masculine reasons? Are we perhaps seeing what we want to see? Also, little girls are shown Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty while boys are shown G.I. Joe and Star Wars. Children are taught at an early age what activities each gender is permitted to participate in and that influence is hard to remove.

The authors proceed to discuss the second desire they say all women have; to share in an adventure. They note that “most girls go through a horse stage” in a list of possible adventures, followed by the statement that “…we were made to be a part of a great adventure. An adventure that is shared. We don’t want adventure merely for adventure’s sake but for what is required of us for others. We don’t want to be alone in it, we want to be in it with others.” (12) This particular paragraph is of great interest to me. As many of you may know, I went through a horse stage as a girl, and in fact, I remain stuck in the horse phase 15 years later. I do love the adventure that horses provide me with, that is very true. However, what I love about horses is that it is an adventure for me alone. Granted, the horse is involved, but horses are something I can do without needing anyone else. I can get on my horse and go for a ride and get away from everyone and not have to think about anyone else, it’s just me against me. If all of these supposed statements are true, why do they contradict so heavily? Oh, but wait, it keeps going in the next paragraph when the authors talk about how women are relational at heart…”Our lives were meant to be lived with others. As echoes of the Trinity, we remember something. Made in the image of a perfect relationship, we are relational to the core of our beings and filled with a desire for transcendent purpose" (12). First of all, why are women echoing the relational character of the Trinity, but not men? Secondly, I like to be by myself. I am a highly introverted person, whether it appears that way or not. I am exhausted by being around people; I would love to spend a day riding my horse in a field rather than go to a party or generally be around people. That’s not to say that I do not enjoy having deep friendships (for example, I never tire of spending time with Ryan!), but this is yet another example within this book of a broad statement that is being made of women which is very not true of me.

The final desire the authors state all women have is to have a beauty to unveil. They write, "God has set eternity in our hearts. The longing to be beautiful is there are well" (16). I find this statement to be very dangerous in that the authors are taking a bible verse without referencing it, and adding onto it a statement about how women should feel. The Bible does say that “God has set eternity in our hearts”, but it says nothing of God setting the longing to be beautiful there as well. The way the authors have phrased this does imply that both statements are Biblical, when in fact, only one is. If they are going to tell me that God has done something (set a longing to be beautiful in my heart) I would like Biblical proof, which they are unable to provide.

The end of the first chapter has John talking about the book he wrote for men called Wild at Heart. The book is based upon similar assumptions as Captivating, and makes the same mistakes in reasoning. The type of reasoning used in this book is primarily looking at the way our culture functions, and making conclusions about how things are meant to be from that, rather than considering that our culture has shaped our behavior. The authors essentially say “Girls like to wear skirts, therefore ALL women must like skirts and be made that way with a desire to be beautiful”. By this logic, I can look around and say “Hmm, the fact that humans murder one another must mean that ALL PEOPLE have an innate desire to murder, and that desire was put there by God.” While this example is extreme, it is following the same line of reasoning used by the authors to determine what all men and women think and feel. From the time we are infants throughout our entire lives, we are treated differently depending on our gender. A newborn boy is met with “look how big he is!” while a little girl is met with “aww, look how tiny and beautiful she is”. Boys are handled more roughly through childhood than girls, and the clothes our parents dress us in to the games our teachers allow us to play in school all shape how we act and interact…and each culture and time period is different. Yet, these authors believe that they are able to transcend time and cultures to miraculously make statements about “all” and “every” woman…which I find to be extremely risky.

In summary, I do not fit into the mold they present a woman as supposed to be, while they also state that they are not trying to provide another “to do” list for women. "How do we recover essential femininity without falling into stereotypes, or worse, ushering more pressure and shame upon our readers? That is the last thing a woman needs" (x). I find this terribly ironic that the authors are saying that they do not want to fall into stereotypes, and then proceed to write an entire book about what all women want, and how every woman wants to be a princess in a pretty dress waiting for her prince to come rescue her. "This book is not about what you ought to do or who you ought to be. It's about discovering who you already are, as a woman" (19). This statement about discovering is true - IF I ALREADY AGREE. The authors just spent a chapter telling me how I am supposed to feel, they are giving me a new list of rules to live by.

If these three desires are so universal and innate, why was must I read a book to learn them?

And why do I receive such condemnation for disagreeing with it?

What about how I feel?

What about how I have lived my life?

I am an individual, not an "every little girl” and “all women"!

Captivating - An Introductory Review

2009-09-27T16:17:00.007-04:00

I (Anna) am going to do a slow review of the book “Captivating” by John and Stasi Eldredge. I have read this book multiple times and I will attempt to offer some different viewpoints and both criticism and appreciation for some of its ideas. I am not attempting to construct a formal argument for anything, but mostly respond with my personal experiences and beliefs to the ideas presented in “Captivating”.

So, I shall begin with a few thoughts on the book as a whole and proceed in a post soon to come in which I will respond to various passages from the first chapter which I have strong thoughts regarding. I will discuss additional chapters in the weeks/months to come. I hope that those with opinions on the matter feel free to share and discuss this book/topic with me.

This book presents a distorted view of God and a distorted view of women, which I will demonstrate through some concerns I have with specific passages throughout the book in future posts.
The authors do not seem to be purposefully leading individuals astray from Biblical truth, but through their incautious use of Scripture and their use of non-scriptural ideas (which are often presented in a manner in which to make them appear scriptural - directly or indirectly) there remains a very large problem that this book possesses a very culturally specific and erroneous view of both who women are and who women should be.
Much of what the authors have to say is positive and is in accord with a Biblical worldview – that women are distinct from men and that feminism does not provide an answer for how women are to live in order to please God – but their exaggerated view of women falls far short of “gospel” truth and places restrictions on the ways in which men and women can interact with each other and with God.
I DO NOT believe that men and women are the same and no differences exist between the gender…I feel quite the opposite in that there are differences between men and women, as there are differences among women, and differences among men. One is deeply misguided in using “all” and “every” to describe half of the human population. What is it that makes the authors so bold as to presume that they know what every single woman ever thinks and feels? Who gave them this vast knowledge? This book replies upon gender stereotypes (though they deny it) in a way that is incomplete, culturally dictated and old fashioned. It glorifies the Hollywood image of a man who is wild, independent and strong as well as a woman who desires relationships, wants to be rescued by a knight in shining armor and wants to wear dresses and be seen as beautiful. They do not allow for the diversity of mankind, for all people are different.
This book is written to middle-class America, while claiming to be true of all time and all the world. Throughout the book they insist that the desires that women have are present in all women from childhood. I am not denying that they believe this to be true; however, my experiences have told me that in practice it is not true for many women. For one, it is not true of me; I do not fit into their mold. So that’s one out of the “all” that it isn’t true for. I have multiple friends who found this book to be insulting and inaccurate as well. I have worked with a diverse population of people through my jobs over the past couple years, and I have not encountered these three desires to be so overwhelmingly true. In fact, in the many teenage girls I developed relationships with while working as their caseworker and legal guardian, I spent a lot of time talking to them and learning about them and asking questions about their hearts, and not once not did any of them mention a desire to be beautiful, to share an adventure or to be romanced. Sure, they wanted to wear trendy clothes and they wanted boys to like them, but these were not the primary desires and goals they shared with me. I would challenge the authors to take their counseling practice out of their comfortable offices and move it to downtown Cincinnati and work with the clients who don’t have the money to pay for the sessions and see what those people have to say.

Feminine & Masculine

2009-08-08T08:22:00.001-04:00

masculine: pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men.

feminine: pertaining to a woman or girl.

Above, are the first definitions of the words masculine and feminine from dictionary.com.

Perhaps it is the post-modernist in me, I am always confused when people use these words. What do they really mean?

It seems to me that any definition someone could come up with that is broad enough to cover an entire gender would be essentially meaningless.

So, I'm asking for feedback...what do people think about these words? What do they think they mean?

One Day You Will

2009-07-08T20:53:00.008-04:00

I just "heard" a song for the first time, though I had listened to it many times before. And then I put it on repeat for 30 minutes.

I had just left a residential treatment center where I was visiting a 13 year old girl I've been working with since last August. I'll call her Sarah. Anyways, since her mom signed custody over the the county in August for not being able to handle Sarah's behavior the mom has moved 4 hours away and all other relatives in the area have said on the record in court that they don't want her. So she bounced around between 4 foster homes in 1.5 months - each one not being able to handle her and each time I had to go pick her up from wherever she was...Hamilton, Columbus, Cincinnati and drive her to the next stop and see the tears that silently fell down her cheeks as yet another person gave up on her. Eventually in November Sarah entered this treatment center that's supposed to be for 2-3 months..and she's been there for 8 months. She hates it. I hate it! But my hands are tied because I am obligated by the law to continue to try to reunify her with her mom who says with her words that she wants her daughter back, but every action says the opposite, and as long as she shows up for court sometimes, I have to keep working. So that means Sarah is abandoned and alone, unwanted and afraid. She wants to go home, she wants her mom to want her. I'm only required to visit her every 30 days, but lately I've been visiting her every week because it's just breaking my heart. Every time she asks when she can go home and every time I have to break her heart and say "I don't know sweetie". Every morning when I get to work I have a voicemail from the staff at the center reporting what went on with Sarah over night...she got into a fight, she refused to leave her room, she went outside and wouldn't come back in...she's a depressed and forgotten girl. I do the best I can while I'm swamped with a million other things to do, I make the time to send her a card I wrote on her favorite color of paper, I google to find some printable stationary with her favorite cartoon character on it...these things seem small to me, but it's the only attention she gets and the couple days after she gets them in the mail I don't get any messages about her behavior.

So I had just left from visiting Sarah and I was feeling the weight of the world on my shoulders as I held her heart and her future in my hands. And this song by Lady Antebellum popped up on my cd player...please give it a chance and read it through...if you can, listen to a clip of it on iTunes, it means a lot more when you hear the depth of the voices singing it...

You feel like you're falling backwards
Like you're slippin' through the cracks
Like no one would even notice
If you left this town and never came back
You walk outside and all you see is rain
You look inside and all you feel is pain
And you can't see it now,

But down the road the sun is shining
In every cloud there's a silver lining
Just keep holding on
And every heartache makes you stronger
But it won't be much longer
You'll find love, you'll find peace
And the you you're meant to be
I know right now that's not the way you feel
But one day you will

You wake up every morning and ask yourself
What am I doing here anyway
With the weight of all those disappointments
Whispering in your ear
You're just barely hanging by a thread
You wanna scream but you're down to your last breath
And you don't know it yet,

But down the road the sun is shining
In every cloud there's a silver lining
Just keep holding on
And every heartache makes you stronger
But it won't be much longer
You'll find love, you'll find peace
And the you you're meant to be
I know right now that's not the way you feel
But one day you will
One day you will
Oh one day you will!

My goal is a find a way to impart to Sarah even a glimpse of the hope that drips from the lyrics of this song. And I want to take it beyond Sarah, to other children who are lost and hurting - and to their parents. I want to take it to my co-workers in hopes that they can take it to their clients.

And I want to take it to you, my friends, so you can be encouraged to spread hope to those you touch in your life. I know at the core it's the essence of the Gospel and I'm not trying to minimize that aspect of it...but hope is so simple and it is so desperately needed and I think I'm finally starting to get somewhat of a grasp on the depth of this matter and the breadth of my ability to do something, and I've realized that I've spent most of my life standing still waiting to find something to do. I was waiting for writing on the wall to tell me how to love people instead of just opening up my eyes to the brokenness that I've always been aware of but never accepted. It's not necessary to send money to missionaries over seas...certainly not a bad thing, but that money is needed here. It's not necessary to spend a day building a house, again it's a good thing, but it's simpler than that, it's just loving the children who have no one to do so. I know it's not for everyone, but I beg of you, if you ever have the opportunity, please reach out to these unwanted children. There are countless ways...volunteer to be a mentor, donate to a cause that provides for children in foster care, advocate for a child in the court room - these are all things anyone can do! If you want more information, I'll gladly share with you. There are families and generations stuck in an endless cycle of abuse that will never be corrected until these children learn that their lives are beautiful and worth living, that their voice is worth hearing and they are lovable.

Again, you may not feel the pull that I feel, but I know that you have the heart and talents to make a difference in the world I am working.

I wanna do something that matters
Say something different
Something that sets the whole world on it's ear
I wanna do somethin better, with the time I've been given
And i wanna try to touch a few hearts in this life
And leave nothin less that something that says I was here!

Solomon's sword: two families and the children the state took away

2009-04-06T20:43:00.002-04:00

I'm reading this book right now and I highly recommend it to anyone who has an ounce of interest in the field of child welfare or of the issue of poverty. This book examines the multitude of viewpoints that are projected into this field and especially into the court system when the custody of a child is at stake. It sheds light onto the uncertainty and failure of the system, and I find myself relating very well to it. I am not attempting to write a book review right now, especially as I have not finished the book...I just wanted to throw that out there as I am finding myself more and more consumed and concerned by my job as I feel a greater crushing weight of the responsibility and power that is given to me as I must make the decisions that will affect the lives of these children forever.

Rich Young Ruler by Derek Webb

2009-03-31T21:31:00.001-04:00

I was listening to a song the other day that captures a lot of what I've been reading, thinking, and realizing the past few weeks about what it really means to follow Christ. I hope to continue elaborating on these themes in the future, but for the time I'll just post the lyrics. I especially like the second verse.

Poverty is so hard to see
When it's only on your tv and twenty miles across town
Where we're all living so good
That we moved out of Jesus' neighborhood
Where he's hungry and not feeling so good
From going through our trash
He says, more than just your cash and coin
I want your time, I want your voice
I want the things you just can't give me

So what must we do
Here in the west we want to follow you
We speak the language and we keep all the rules
Even a few we made up
Come on and follow me
But sell your house, sell your suv
Sell your stocks, sell your security
And give it to the poor
Well, what is this, hey what's the deal
I don't sleep around and I don't steal
But I want the things you just can't give me
I want the things you just can't give me

Because what you do to the least of these
My brothers, you have done it to me
Cause I want the things you just can't give me
I want the things you just can't give me

Inspiring Hope

2008-11-09T11:11:00.001-05:00

Question: I have been wondering lately if, perhaps, the appeal of Obama's slogan and promises of "hope" (especially to the younger generation) has more to do with people's desire to have something to believe in and something to look to and fill the void in their lives than anything else. Which, as a Christian, is an interesting notion because it's something that the church should be offering people, not a political candidate. So, why is Obama doing such a good job of "marketing" hope, and the church isn't?

Answer: I've been tossing a few ideas around in my head for the last few days, and here is what I have come up with:

I think the problem for the church is that we have gotten the message of Jesus screwed up over time. The church has been so focused on morality (i.e. getting people to behave in a certain way) and getting people "saved" (i.e. just getting people into heaven...I put that in quotation marks not because I disagree with the need for salvation, but because I don't think salvation is just about getting people into heaven). Within these two narratives, I think the message of salvation loses a lot of its potential to inspire hope.

Anna and I listened to a message from Mars Hill Bible Church this morning, given by Brian McLaren. It touches on a number of these issues and is well worth listening to, if you care to...you can listen to it here, it is called "Which Story Do We Live In?"

What McLaren points out is that, throughout history, there have been a number of dominant narratives that have inspired people to action, among them the domination narrative, the victimization narrative, the purification narrative, etc. In this language, I would say the church has fallen primarily into two narratives: the domination narrative and the purification narrative. The first deals with the desire to get people "saved" as I discussed above...it involves an "us vs. them" dynamic that says followers of Christ are one team and everyone else is another team, and we need to convert them by any means necessary. The second is the purification narrative that deals with the morality issue I discussed above and involves the idea that says we can make the world a better place if we just guilt and shame people into acting the way we want them to. It also creates an "us vs. them" dynamic and leads people to form little Christian enclaves that attempts to disassociate with the "heathen" secular world.

This new (and false) story has taken acceptance and replaced it with condemnation, taken joy and replaced it with new laws. Is it any wonder that the story of Christ which has been re-written by Christians who believe they know the way to achieve their misguided goals, is unattractive to the world?

If the church wants to inspire hope in people,
I think they need to learn to break away
from these broken and hurtful stories
and get back to telling God's story.

God's story is about so much more than the desire to conquer the non-believers and free ourselves from this world and get to the next one.

It is about the here and now.
It is about taking care of the poor, the dispossessed and the oppressed.
It is about bringing justice to this world.
It is about curing disease and putting an end to violence.

It's about taking care of the environment.

It's about loving our neighbor and serving the rest of humanity with the love of Christ.

So, I disagree that the "hope of Christianity seems to be for the next world." At least, it shouldn't be. The true message of Christ brought hope to this world, because it sought to redeem this world. As Brian McLaren says in "A New Kind of Christian":

"We hear 'kingdom of heaven' and we think 'kingdom of life after death.' But that's the very opposite of what Jesus is talking about. Remember - he says repeatedly, the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, has arrived! It's near, here, at hand, among you! It's not just about after you die; it's about here, now, in this life!"

So why is Obama doing such a good job of inspiring hope in people? I think you touch on a lot of reasons...he is fulfilling a void a lot of people have. They want something to believe in and they want hope and he is bringing it to them. And the way he brings it to them is - by and large - to tell them he can fix their problems and make the world a better place. I think the church could learn something from that...or perhaps I should say re-learn it. Because at one time the church was doing the work of taking care of people, which is why it expanded so rapidly in the 1st century. If we could recapture this authentic view of salvation, we could bring hope to people again.

"The way you modern evangelicals use the word 'saved' is, I think, terribly unbiblical. (How's that for throwing down the gauntlet?) The way you talk about salvation suggests that the only thing that matters in life is getting your butt into heaven, being saved from hell, getting eternal life for yourself...Here's a question: Is getting individual souls into haven the focal point of the gospel? I'd have to say no, for any number of reasons. Don't you think God is concerned about saving the whole world?...We seem to think that the only thing that God really wants to save is "souls." But to me the biblical vision is never a disembodied soul floating in or out of space. No, it's the redemption of the world, the stars, the animals, the plants, the whole show." - Brian McLaren

brokenness turned to numbness

2008-11-06T20:44:00.001-05:00

On February 15th, nearly 9 months ago, I (Anna) wrote a post entitled "brokenness" about my job at the time and how I was frustrated that I was unable to help the children who were so obviously in need.

Exactly 3 months after that day, I started a new job thinking that as a Children's Services caseworker I would finally be able to fix the world and help these children.

I could not have been more wrong.

My hands are so tightly bound by laws and regulations I wouldn't have a chance in the world to give a hurting child a hug, or even a pat on the back. I am caught in a web of time lines and deadlines that prevent me from taking the time to truly learn about the family which I must create a plan which is supposed to "fix" them.

I am surrounded by so much hurt, so many years of abuse and neglect which have created whole generations of people who don't have any idea what a family is supposed to be. I am surrounded by so many stories which should make my heart ache within me, but I can just turn to the next page to learn what other hideous acts were taken against these children who had their innocence ripped away from them at such a young age.

Being so surrounded by so much brokenness, more often than not, I forget to hurt.

I forget to let it get beneath the surface. I forget I should cringe when I hear about a fifteen year old girl who just went home with a thirty-three year old man she met on the street and had sex with him because he said he would buy her supper at White Castle. I forget it's not normal for children to be born positive for marijuana and methadone. I forget it's not right for a woman to be pregnant with her twelfth child, with the other eleven already placed in foster or adoptive homes.

I don't mean to forget,
I really don't.

But, at the same time, it is required for survival. If I took a moment to mourn for each injustice, I would never have time to turn to the next page of the file. So I must construct some sort of a barrier between my heart and the world I step into every morning and struggle to leave behind every evening.

While I can go through most days and keep the necessary distance from my work for me to maintain a finger hold on my own sanity, sometimes something happens that gets me...

- I saw a co-worker leading two children who appeared to be about 2 and 4 through the hallway. The four year old ran ahead and the worker said "yup, the same room we were in the last time." There's a room on my floor that's designed to be a place where children who suddenly come into our custody can go and play while we search for a home for them. A four year old is not supposed to know what this room looks like. A four year old is certainly not supposed to remember where the room is.

- The look in the eyes of a twelve year old girl as she stood in the door way watching her first foster mom sign a "30 day to vacate" notice, stating the mom did not want the girl in her home anymore. This was less than three weeks into the placement and I've had to move this girl 7 times in two and a half months. And this was after her legal guardian had signed a “voluntary agreement of care” which gave custody of her to us. Oh, and her mom had voluntarily given up custody ten years prior.

I guess I don’t have much more to say. I realize I don’t have a point to this random blurb. I guess the moral of the story is I have learned that if my goal is to protect children and families, Children’s Services is not the way to do it, at least not as long as the current laws and current court system stands over us and tells us exactly what to do.

On one final note, I must say, for the sake of all child welfare workers in the world: We are not “baby snatchers”. We do not like to take children away from their homes. Let me repeat that, we do not like to take children away from their homes. It is not something we look forward to, it is the last resort on our list of things to do. Certainly, if it is a very unsafe environment we will do whatever is necessary to protect the child, but foster care is not our first choice. Not only do we know that children are usually better off with a less than perfect birth family than with a perfect foster family, but, to be honest, it’s far too much work for us to take a child into custody. In my county it means filling out a 36 page document which must be submitted to the people who search for foster homes. Then a many page court complaint must be completed and submitted to the court, followed by at least 3 days of court spread over the next month. But, regardless, if it’s the one thing you remember from anything I’ve ever said, know that child welfare workers will do whatever it takes to protect a child, but we do not like to take them away from their homes.

Courage does not always roar.
Sometimes courage
is the small quiet voice
at the end of the day saying,
"I will try again tomorrow."

brokenness

2008-02-15T17:47:00.003-05:00

Working daily with school age children keeps me on my toes...I never know what is going to come out of their mouths....and unfortunately, more often then not, I find my heart aching for them...

Things that break my heart:

The 6 year old boy who told me that he and dad broke up with mom and he doesn't know where she lives.
The brother and sister who frequently have large scratches and bruises, and when I ask about it, quickly say their dog got too rough playing with them.
Seeing the kids playing "house" and how quickly the question of "okay, when is it time for us to get a divorce" comes into play.
Listening to the kids talk about dad's first wife, dad's second wife, dad's current girlfriend, and their mom - all separate people. (and it goes both ways)
The brother and sister who were concerned the day their mom was late to pick them up because she had gone to court for a custody battle that afternoon and they thought that neither their mom or their dad would want custody of them and they'd be homeless.
The parents who drop off their kids at 7:00am on the dot (the earliest they're allowed) and don't pick them up until 6:00pm on the dot (the latest they're allowed). These same parents have jobs that don't start until 8, 9, 10am. One particular mom is rarely there to pick her 11 year old up before 6, and I know for a fact that she gets off work at 4:30 at an office that does not allow employees to work overtime, and it is only a 30 minute drive away.
An 8 year old boy who told me he hates going home and wanted to go to his grandparent’s house instead. When I asked why, he said his parents only bought him a Game Cube, XBox 360, and Playstation 2...but they don't have a Wii which his grandparents do.
The shock and confusion upon their faces when I say I have no video games, I don't even have cable/satellite. They can't understand what I do, and I tell them that I read and cook and play games and spend time with my husband. The last item is the one they're most confused about; they never have their parents spend time together.

Bob Pierce, the founder of World Vision is known for his quote "Let my heart be broken with the things that break Your heart". That is a quote I have been familiar with for years, a prayer I have prayed many times. While World Vision is a fantastic organization, they do many great and wonderful things; I wish people could realize how many heart breaking things are going on right here, right next door, in our schools, in our streets. And it's not the hunger that is being addressed by soup kitchens and discount organizations, it's not homelessness that shelters are working to eliminate, it's not hurricanes and tsunamis and earth quakes, it's not even always direct child abuse or physical neglect.

These children are starved for attention, desperate for love. They go home to empty homes...some literally and others might as well have no other person on them, for the television is the only thing that has any light and life to it. Toys are given to replace time; video games are given to take the place of real contact.

I wish I could tell these kids it will be okay, it'll get better. But, for the most part, it's not going to get better. It will be different, yes, but not better. They'll grow up and leave behind their Webkins and Pokemons; they'll turn to boyfriends and girlfriends, drugs and alcohol, more media items....more emptiness.

Don't feel like I've got anything to give
So I guess I've got nothing to lose...
I wanna give You everything
But I've got nothing of my own at all
And if I give what I have not got
Will You fill me up and make me whole...
-The Normals

I don't know what I can do, for I realize I can never take the place of an absent mom or a disinterested dad. I cannot fill that void, that need that they have. I'll do my best; I'll tie their shoes and brush their hair. I'll smile and hug them, I'll sit down and listen intently to anything they have to say, I'll continue to ask questions about their lives, and I hope to someday not received a confused expression and "why would you care" reply when I ask how their day was...I want them to know that I completely and wholly care about everything they are. And maybe, just maybe, I will someday convince even just one of them that they are valuable, precious, lovable, and I love them for who they are.

-Anna-

From this morning's Cincinnati Enquirer:

Study: Family violence costs $1B

Family violence costs Ohio an estimated $1.1 billion a year in social and health-care services, according to a report out today by the Health Policy Institute of Ohio. The report, "The White Paper on Improving Family Violence Prevention in Ohio," concludes that 14 percent of Ohio children will be maltreated by the time they reach age 18." Authors also conclude that at least 3 percent of seniors will be abused, and almost one in four women will be abused by a spouse or domestic partner in her lifetime. Kenneth Steinman, lead author of the report and an assistant professor in Ohio State University's College of Public Health, called the findings "truly disturbing." "Family violence affects a large number of people in Ohio each year," Steinman said. "However, this is almost a hidden crisis, with the general public and many state leaders unaware of just how widespread and costly family violence is to both individuals, families and our entire community." In figuring the cost of family violence, researchers looked at the cost of medical care for victims, including emergency room visits and mental health treatment, and social services, including foster care for abused children and shelters for battered women.

And just think...that is only talking about physical violence. It isn't even talking about those kids, spouses, and seniors who are emotionally, verbally, or mentally abused or neglected, the ones who are "starved for attention" and "desperate for love." If a full 14% of children are physically abused and almost 25% of women, then how much larger must the neglect problem be?

-Ryan-