Gender Equality and The Church

Recently I read this extremely eloquent article by Samantha Eyler. You should definitely go read it. Go on. My post won’t make sense if you don’t.

I’ll wait.

….


Done? Good. Onward!


The last paragraph struck me deeply: “So moderate people of faith, those of you who can endure the cognitive dissonance of espousing progressive politics while gleaning support in religious traditions that are thousands of years old -- I ask you to please speak up. There are many of us who need to hear your voices much more loudly.”

My heart went out to Samantha when I read that! This is me speaking up. I’m answering her call. There are a lot of great voices out there already, to be sure, and I can’t pretend to speak for every Christian (obviously). But I have something to say for her--specifically because she asked. I know many who are in her situation or a similar one. Many people who are led to believe that faith in Christ and gender equality (or any number of issues) are mutually exclusive. That idea is simply not true!

The main issue Samantha mentioned in her article was that of gender in the church, so that’s what I’ll focus on for this particular post. This has been an issue I’ve wrestled with for a while now. Like her, I have a hard time with the gender roles my childhood church was preaching.

The church I grew up in was not fundamentalist, but rather “complementarian.” What this meant was that while women weren’t necessarily looked down on or treated as second-class, they were not allowed in leadership positions over other men. This was based on the verses Samantha quoted in her article, 1 Tim. 2:11-12, where Paul states he would not permit a woman to have authority over a man.

As far as I knew, it wasn’t something that affected me as I grew up; in fact, I hardly even noticed it. I was a natural leader as a student, so I was always very involved in youth group and bible studies, but children tend to be treated with more equality when it comes to gender (at least, in this church they were). It wasn’t until around my freshman year of high school that I looked around and noticed there were no female pastors in our community. When I inquired about this, the above verses were quoted to me.

I personally never felt a calling or desire to be a pastor, so at first I only thought, well, I guess it doesn’t affect me anyways. I didn’t realize at the time, of course, how much I was missing out on because of it.

Still, the thought pricked at my conscience for a while. While I was in college, I really dove into studying it. I asked God about it. The more I studied, the more I asked him, the more I began to feel that my home church might have been missing the mark. Jesus, after all, treated the women of his day with an unusual amount of favor--many could argue that he was really the first feminist. He refused to punish the adulteress when all the religious leaders of the time wanted to stone her (John 8:1-11). He sat down and spoke with a Samaritan woman; he treated her with kindness, when most Jews of the time treated Samaritans (and especially the women) as second-class citizens (John 4:4-26). And the first person he appeared to when he rose from the dead was a woman (Mark 16:9). This last one is particularly significant because at the time, women could not testify in court (1). Their voices literally did not count in a court of law. Her testimony of what she saw and heard of the risen Lord would likely not have been counted as worth listening to by many leaders of the time. And yet Jesus appeared to her, spoke to her, comforted her, and gave her a message to send. He deemed her voice valuable.

On top of all this, there’s the issue of Phoebe, a woman who was clearly a leader of a house church, and a friend Paul valued dearly (Rom. 16:1-2). This fact suggests that Paul's statement barring women from authority over men was not a be-all, end-all rule; it was, perhaps, merely his specific instruction for the group he was addressing in that particular letter--Timothy’s church.

Lastly, we have to consider cultural differences. I know this argument especially irks fundamentalist Christians, but the reality is that the women Paul wrote about and to were very different than the women of today. They were not allowed to receive an education. They were constrained to manage a home, if that, and nothing more. Their only source of knowledge about social issues, politics, religion, etc, was their father or their husband. They certainly weren’t equipped to lead. How could they be? The rare women who were--like Phoebe--were recognized and appreciated by Paul. So it would seem that he didn’t refuse women leadership roles because of their gender, he refused them because the culture they lived in prevented them from getting the proper training (with occasional exceptions). So we have to assume that women today, if they indeed possess the skills, training, and education needed for leadership, would not be held back by Paul from doing so because of their gender.

On studying and discovering all of these things, I came slowly but holistically to the conclusion that my wonderful God is indeed a feminist. He is for gender equality. It was not until after the fall, the ‘original sin,’ that God told Eve her husband “would rule over her” (Gen. 3:16). When he said that, contrary to many teachings, I believe what he was saying was descriptive, not prescriptive--that is, he wasn’t inventing the curse. The curse was the natural consequence of sin, much like breaking a leg is a natural consequence of jumping off a roof. God doesn’t say, “Well, you jumped off a roof, even though I told you not too--so I’m going to break your leg!” Nonetheless, the leg is broken because of what happened. Sin messes things up.

God's original intention for legs is wholeness. His original intention for gender is equality. If Christ came to restore us, doesn’t that mean we ought to pursue a restored life? Restored to what God originally intended? Restored to equality and love?

I first thought that the complementarian church ‘didn’t affect me,’ simply because I never wanted to be a pastor. What I didn’t realize was that the dearth of female role models in the church was and is detrimental to many young girls. We need women leaders, role models, teachers, pastors. While the pastors at my church were loving, wonderful men with the best of intentions, what they (and many complementarian pastors) might not realize is that keeping women from leadership sends a silent message to the children at their church: Women are lesser beings. It doesn’t matter what you say or teach, barring women from leadership teaches girls they’re not as good, and teaches boys that they are better. This alone contributes to a plethora of other problems in the church--but that might be for a different post.

The first time I heard a woman preach, I cried. It was so incredibly affirming to my very existence, I couldn’t help it. I’d never realized how much I missed what I’d never had. Thankfully the men and women in my life, especially my parents, are strong, wise people, who encouraged me to question and never felt threatened by those questions I raised. They talked with me through it and helped me learn. Unfortunately this isn’t the same for everyone--in many church communities, questions and curiosities are met with hostility and a “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude which can lead people to believe that faith and gender equality are mutually exclusive. I'll say it again: They are not!

Samantha spoke out to those who can “endure the cognitive dissonance of espousing progressive politics while gleaning support in religious traditions,” but I think the religious traditions are the problem. The dissonance comes when we trust and ask our religion instead of trusting and asking our God.

Religion is ridiculously messed up. If you’re looking for religion, it will eventually let you down. Churches and the people that make them up have problems. (This does not mean that we shouldn’t attend church gatherings--I think we should, but again, that’s for another post.) Look instead for God, the one who created you and adores you as his child. A lot of people are going to talk sh*t about him, and a lot of people are going to misrepresent him. Ignore those people, and go directly to him to see for yourself. I’m not saying it’s easy or simple; there’s a lot of stuff I still don’t understand. But God does not demand that we accept strange rules or ideas without curiosity or study. He only asks that we include him in the process. Talk to him and get to know him--spend time with him--ask him the hard questions, and see what happens.

As for that voice you asked for, I hope this helps. I am going to try and be that voice (or one small piece of it) more often with this blog. I’m not an expert, I don’t have a PhD, and I’m not going to get it right all the time. I’m just a progressive Christian who tends to question things, and I’m always trying to reconcile questions of Christ and culture. Let me know if you have any, or help me out by joining the discussion and adding your own thoughts, updates, and corrections. Thanks!

Reference:

(1) B.M. Metzger & M.D. Coogan, "The Oxford Companion to the Bible", Oxford University Press, New York, NY, (1993), P. 806 to 818

I'm a Christian Actress, and I did a Sex Scene for a Movie. Here's Why.

The film A Tale of Delight is just that--it's a tale of joy and the search thereof. Psalm 16:11 says that the "fullness of joy" is in God's presence, so a search for joy is really about a search for God. The story is strongly influenced by the idea of Christian Hedonism, which says "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him." All people are looking for God, because he's wired us to search for joy--which can only be truly found in him. Though this film isn't explicitly Christian, it definitely alludes to this need for God as the true source of joy in the midst of suffering, and I'm exceedingly pumped to be a part of that. But I have to admit, there are a few scenes that might cause some of my loved ones to take pause. 

If you've seen the trailer for A Tale of Delight, you'll notice that, first of all, there's kind of a lot of kissing going on between myself and a man who is decidedly not my husband. Just so we're clear, this is what actually happens: there's a whole lot of kissing. I'm in my bra or underwear at the barest moment. We're in bed. There's no nudity, but sex is implied. Also implied in the trailer is an extremely disturbing and violent scene, which will be more graphic in the actual film.

For a lot of my friends and family, the lingering question in the back of your mind might be, "Why does Heather, as a Christian, think it's okay to kiss some other guy in her skivvies for a camera? Or support violence?" That's a totally valid question.   First of all, thank you so much for your love and support--thank you for taking the time to wonder this. I'm grateful for your concern and appreciate the care you've taken as I've taken on a rather weighty role. In answer to your question, I think it's more than okay. I don't think we should ever just do things because it's merely permissible--what's the benefit in that? "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial" (I Cor. 10:23). I don't think God grudgingly allowed me this, I think he took true delight in it and wants me to do so as well. Really! If you're shaking your head, stay with me. Let's take on the issues that might be bugging you one at a time. 

Issue #1: The man I'm kissing is not my husband. This is true. The most obvious response to this is--we're acting. If this weren't for a film, if this weren't in the script and arguably an important part of the story, if I just kissed some guy, that would of course be wrong. But this was very planned, very intentional, and for a very specific purpose. However, the more important response is this: Thomas (my husband) was okay with it. With every role I'm ever offered, Thomas has veto power. I have willingly given this to him, out of deep respect and love for a man who has faithfully, lovingly, and devotedly supported me more fully than I could have ever imagined in every single endeavor I've attempted. He has practiced more lines with me, gone with me to more auditions, given me more helpful feedback, encouraged and lifted me up whenever I've felt self conscious, and generally believed in me much more than I could ever have reasonably asked. If there's a requirement for a role that makes him so uncomfortable that he actually asks me not to take it, well then, for him I wouldn't take it--regardless of whether I agreed with his reasoning or not. Our marriage is more important than my career, and it always will be. That's part of what I think getting married means. 

Issue #2: I'm in my bra and underwear! And It's public! Anyone can see it! This is true, and anyone who grew up in a conservative Christian church might have the ever present "don't make your brothers stumble" phrase echoing through their mind. All the issues behind that phrase would take up another blog post, so here I'll just address the foremost. Consider this: if I was in my underwear and my house caught on fire, it would not be wrong or sinful for me to run outside without getting more clothes on--even if there were lots of men outside. Of course, I would do my best to cover up--my purpose would not be to attract, arouse, or tempt any of those men in any way--or cause them to stumble. But escaping the fire alive would take a much higher priority than censoring my bare body. I would expect those men to do their best to be noble. It would suck if there were creepers out there who might use the opportunity to take a good, long, inappropriate look. It would be terrible if I caused pain to close friends who ended up being tempted. But escaping the fire would still take priority over preventing any of that. Right?

A movie is certainly not as urgent as a life-threatening fire. I'm not arguing that. My point is that in certain situations, it's possible for something to take a higher priority than preventing others from lusting. We make this decision every day, and everyone has a different line--which is why the definition of modesty depends on the culture you live in. I believe that if a film, a piece of art, or a story (or all three combined) glorifies God, then it takes higher priority. Just as with the fire, my goal in the film was certainly NOT to attract, tempt or arouse anyone--that's what we call porn, which I'm not okay with. But it was clear from the script that for the most effective story, this amount of skin was actually necessary, and that necessity took priority over preventing lust. Once you watch the movie you can decide for yourself if you agree.

Issue #3: This scene supports the morals of having sex outside of marriage. First of all, that's not necessarily true--the characters in the movie are married. But even if they weren't, it's still important enough to the story that I would have just as willingly taken the part. When telling a story, sometimes sex is involved, and sometimes it's essential to that story. If the story is for God's glory, then telling it truthfully is that much more important. That doesn't mean showing sex is always necessary--usually it isn't, even though a lot of times sex is added to movies just for the sake of sensationalism. It's hot! It's edgy! Sex sells! This, however, is really, really not one of those times. You'll just have to trust me on that--and see the film to decide if you agree. 

Issue #4: What about violence! It looks like there will be violence. I have more questions about violence!! As with issue number three, this is another hot topic that's often added to films purely for the sake of being edgy and sensational. Again, this really isn't one of those times. This movie does have an attack scene that I imagine will be extremely uncomfortable and definitely on the graphic side. But this violence has a specific purpose--and it's not just to make things edgy. We're trying to help people understand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a mental illness that often goes untreated and ignored. When someone suffers from PTSD, violent memories can attack them unexpectedly. Their friends and family often do not want to accept this, they don't want to think about the horrible things that the victim is forced to dwell on, and often they turn a blind eye. If we were to cut out the violence from the film and simply imply it with a wimpy off-screen scream, we'd be doing the exact same thing. We'd be doing an injustice to the people who suffer through memories like this every day. The violence isn't outrageous or gratuitous, but the story is about a man suffering with PTSD--it wouldn't make sense not to include the central aspect of his suffering. Just like the issue with the fire, sometimes there's something more important than keeping people comfortable. 

I think our director put it best when he wrote, "Although dark, this film does not seek to wallow in misery or romanticize pain. It seeks to transend by creating conversations on lasting joy for those who love someone deeply suffering."  This movie is not about death--it's about redemption. I've seen suffering, and I know how hard joy can be to come by. We're all looking for it, and hopefully this film will help open doors to encouragement and togetherness in a battle that is so often fought alone. I believe that art has the power to change lives and glorify God in ways we might not expect. I believe that God will use this piece of art, too, if we keep on pursuing it with Him in mind.

A Tale of Delight is a completely local, independent film, and we need help funding the rest of the project. Please consider making a donation (you'll get some great perks!)--go here for more info - Make sure you like A Tale of Delight on Facebook to get more updates and help us spread the word! 

My Thoughts On the Occupy Wall Street Movement

When I first heard about the protestors in Portland, I didn't realize it was a part of a bigger movement. All I heard was that there were protesters in Pioneer Place, and I thought, "What for?" Nothing insane had happened in the near past to inspire insurrection, at least not by my reckoning. When I asked my informer why they were protesting, she simply said, "They're protesting corporate greed." 

 I wasn't quite sure I was on board. How is protesting going to solve something like corporate greed? Even with the specific requests of the protestors, I wasn't sure if it would work--or even if it was necessary. My conservative background had me leaning towards the stop-whining-and-get-a-job side. When people complained about home loans or school loans, I could only think that it's rather stupid of someone to take on a loan that they can't afford. 

So, as you can see, I found myself starting to choose a side. But I desperately did not want to choose a side at all, because I have to say--more "sides" to pit against each other is the last thing our country needs. 

I decided to read up as much as I could--and still try to do so--on the issue. One particular BBC article pointed to several websites that have been created based on this movement--the first being We Are the 99 Percent. Here people can upload pictures of themselves holding a sign on which their story of joblessness and indebtedness, of how they've been screwed over by the government, is written. When I first read them, though I did feel for these people, I had a hard time being completely sympathetic. If you're in debt, isn't it your own fault?  I thought. I know job-hunting sucks right now, but...so what? 

Those were my thoughts. The other website I found myself sympathizing much more with: We Are the 53 Percent , a percentage referring to the amount of Americans who pay income tax. This website is a counter to the first, with similar pictures of people holding up signs--this time describing their journeys escaping debt, how hard they had to work to find jobs, and essentially that they worked hard enough to succeed. They also occasionally tell the other side to stop complaining. 

As you can surely tell from the way I'm writing this, it was much easier for me to side with the 53 Percent . They work hard, make good decisions, and are safely out of debt because of it. Right? 

Well, the article I was reading pointed something interesting out. Both sides hold fast to a very deep American ideal: Hard work should pay off. Our country started with that "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-and-get-'er-doooone" mentality. It's one of our founding principles, and one most Americans hold near and dear to their hearts whether they consciously realize it or not: Work hard, reap benefits. Conversely, if you are lazy, we tend to believe you don't deserve a reward. 

Both websites, both sides, are proclaiming this. 

We Are the 53 Percent is full of people saying "Look--we worked hard and now we live debt free." They're saying that if you work hard enough and make wise decisions, you will get rewarded. That's how our system is set up, it's how we believe it should be, and they've seen it work first-hand. We Are the 99 Percent, on the other hand, is saying, "Look--we worked hard, but we still have to live with huge debt/joblessness/poverty/etc." They are saying that they believe hard work should be rewarded--but, because our system is broken, it hasn't worked for them. 

It was then that I realized why it was so easy for me to side with the 53 Percent. The system has worked for me. Sure, job hunting was hard, and sure I have a load of student debt, but I'm working and paying it off and it feels okay. It's not overwhelming. But let's take a step back: I have had a place to live with family, and my husband inherited a successful, albeit small, family business that's supported us. And the job I have now I would not have found were it not for the word of a very dear friend. So what at first looks like my hard work paying off turns out to be a lot of unearned help. Don't get me wrong, I work plenty hard--but I'm starting to realize that my hard work might not have been enough to get me where I am. Without all those unearned windfalls, where would I be now? Would I be able to pay off my debt or even have a place to live? With such good fortune, maybe I'm closer to the 1% than I thought. 

It's quite easy to say that those Occupying their city are merely complaining. Unfortunately, that does not take many realities into consideration. One reality is that many people are trapped in home loans not because of poor decision-making, but because at the time many banks (those same corporate banks being protested) used downright deceptive means to convince people that such-and-such home loan (ARM loans, I'm lookin' at you!) was a great idea. Read more about the mortgage crisis here. As far as student loans, many students accept loans before they've even left home for the first time. It's hard to argue that they should have known better at such a young age. Even if they did stop to consider the consequences, weren't we all convinced that upon graduation we'd receive jobs plenty good enough to pay these loans off? But now it's hard enough to get even a minimum wage job--and try paying off loans with that salary. Especially when you consider the most significant reality that I often overlooked: The rich are taxed less than the poor. This is a truth. If you don't understand how, read this or this article. How is it fair that taxes on capital gains (often the biggest source of income for the ultra-wealthy) is only 15 percent, the second lowest income tax bracket there is? Tax laws favor the rich, and this is hurting the rest of the country. To me, it doesn't make any sense. Which leads me the website that hit me the hardest:

We Are the 1%, We Stand with the 99%

Here, there are also photos of people holding up signs with their stories written on them, but these stories are different. They're stories like, "I inherited 3 million dollars that weren't taxed. I did not have to work for my education; I received more money just by being born than most people do working 60 hours a week their whole lives. This is unjust. I am the 1%, but I stand with the 99%: Tax me!" To me, it really says something if someone is demanding to be taxed more. 

To reiterate, I don't think sides pitted against each other is what our country needs. And there are certainly some people in the 99% who are just lazy and complaining; there are many who are in financial trouble because of their own poor decisions. But many are not, and the ideas that the 99% are stating seem to be right: We should work hard, but with our current system hard work does not always pay off. You don't have to agree with any certain side to see that something is wrong with this economy, and with this country.The system is broken, and change needs to happen.  Maybe that's through protesting; maybe not. What do you think? Join the discussion, whatever your thoughts are. Please let me know if you think something I'm saying is off-base. I believe we need to have that open communication--because an Us vs. Them mentality is not going to be loving, as I believe I'm called to be, or productive for any noble goal.  I want to join that discussion with what I've found that I believe. So, after a confusing and long journey of thought, I've come to decide: I do not know what percent I fall in to--I've worked hard but also been very fortunate--but I do know where I stand. I stand with the 99%, and I'm occupying this blog. 

Nicholas Aaron Madrazo

           

“Private Rogers!” roared the drill sergeant.

“Present!” Rogers stood in the back of the auditorium with several others, all lined up in uniform.

“Private Jackson!”

Another man yelled, “Present!” Most of the civilian crowd was watching each of them, twisted backwards in their seats.

“Private Michaelson!”

“Present!” I wondered how they kept their voices so steady.

“Lt. Daniels!”

“Present!” Some people were looking forward now. Some staring at their hands in their laps.

“Lt. Feeback!”

“Present!” This uniformed man stood from his seat among the civilians.

“Private Jacobs!”

“Present!” He, also, stood up from the crowd.

“Private Madrazo!”  

A young man in the very front row stood and yelled, “Present!”  I wondered where his eyes were looking. Maybe to the stage, which was empty except for a pair of combat boots, a rifle, and a helmet. Maybe at what was directly in front of him.

“Lt. Madrazo!”

Silence. The crowd, I think, was holding its collective breath.  

“Lt. Madrazo!” the drill sergeant called again. Not a murmur came in response. “Lieutenant Nicholas Madrazo!”  We all stared forward now, waiting for the answer that we knew would never come.

“Lieutenant…Nicholas…Aaron…Madrazo!” He paused between each word, louder than ever, maybe hoping it would help.

When silence still fell everywhere, he took a step. A marine to the right of the stage lifted his horn and began to play Taps. The sergeant, locking his eyes on the casket before him, slowly lifted his hand into a salute. All the men in uniform, still standing, did likewise. And his mother wept the most.  

I offer up this writing in honor of my cousin, Nicholas Aaron Madrazo. Three years ago today, he was killed in action with a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. The ceremony which I’ve recalled above occurred at his memorial service; to me, it was so painfully beautiful I had to write it down. For those who were there and share this memory, I apologize if I made any mistakes on the details. I simply wanted to record the memory in Nic’s honor, because I think what the ceremony signifies is incredibly important. Nic died doing exactly what he believed was right. He was devoted to it, completely present, until the very end. Only death could keep him from being so. It was, and is, a beautiful way to mourn and remember our Marine.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Nic was a wonderful man, cherished and missed by many. His family has set up a foundation in his honor to support troops currently in harm’s way as well as veterans and their families. To  learn more about Nic’s story, and to find out how you can contribute, visit www.thenamesfoundation.org.

I want to close with a poem by Paul Eluard entitled “Gabriel Peri.” I read it not long after Nic’s passing, and in substituting “Nicholas” for “Peri,” I found it was almost perfect. I submit it with just such a substitution below.

A man has died who had no other shield

than his arms open wide to life.

A man has died who had no other road

than the road where rifles are hated.

A man has died who battles still

against death, against oblivion.

For all the things he wanted

we wanted too.

We want them to-day:

Happiness to be the light

within the heart within the eyes

and justice on earth.

There are words that help us to live

And they are plain words:

The word warmth, the word trust

Love, justice, and the word freedom

The word child and the word kindness

The names of certain flowers and certain fruits

The word courage and the word discover

The word brother and the word comrade

The name of certain lands and villages

The names of women and friends

Now let us add the name of Nicholas.

Nicholas has died for all that gives us life

Let's call him friend, his chest is bullet-torn,

But thanks to him we know each other better

Let's call each other friend, his hope lives on.

Semper Fi, Nic. I love you, and I praise God for the day when we will see you again. 

Food Blog! Creamy Tomato Sauce! (Gluten-free, dairy-free, and soy-free)

I have been thinking lately that I would like part of my blog to include new food conquests...whether those be creations or discoveries! (i.e. new recipes, or new restaurants) So I'm sharing this recipe, which I developed for dinner at the Walters' one night (We had lots of allergies to deal with). You should make it and let me know what you think!

Ingredients:

1 half-gallon skim lactose-free milk
1 medium log goat cheese
1 container lactose and soy free margarine (try the brand "Earth Balance")
Oatmeal flour for thickening
1 small can tomato paste
1 lb. ground turkey (optional, take out if making vegetarian)
Oregano, rosemary, basil, and garlic to taste
A pinch of salt
Half a cup of cabernet savignon
1/8 cup shaved pecorino goat cheese
a dash of red wine vinegar

1. Make the basic cream sauce by mixing milk, log of goat cheese, and margarine in a large saucepan over high heat, stirring continually. Add oatmeal flower until consistency is thick and creamy.

2. Brown the turkey, if using it.

3. On medium heat, add the remaining ingredients (including the turkey, once browned), mixing each one in before adding the next and stirring continually. (Go crazy with the spices, I think I added almost a total of a quarter cup when I did it, tasting it as I went)

4. Keep stirring until the sauce reaches desired thickness. Serve with gluten-free pasta.

And there you have it! This particular recipe makes quite a large pot, it should serve 7-8. I think it's best with penne pasta, but that's up to you. 

I hope you enjoy it. 

No One Owes Me Anything

I had an interesting thought this week. On Sunday, we were reviewing the verse in which Jesus says anyone who gets angry at their brother or sister is subject to judgement (somewhere in Matt. 5). Anyone who gets angry. That has always seemed to me to be not only a little strict--I mean, we can't really control if we get angry, can we?--but also confusing, as elsewhere in the story Jesus himself lays the smackdown on some dudes selling stuff in the temple. He's outright pissed at them--he even makes a whip right there and starts cracking it at them! Isn't this the guy who's supposed to be perfect? And who just said that whole thing about not getting angry? Where does this all reconcile?

Well, I thought to myself...perhaps there are two kinds of anger. And people have always said that to me, to excuse Jesus' behavior--"Oh, Jesus had righteous anger when he was mad." Excuse me, but am I the only person who wonders what the ---- is 'righteous' anger? when I hear someone say that? But this last Sunday I think I started to understand what it might mean. When Jesus was angry, he was angry at something being done to something other than himself. When I get angry, it's usually because something has been done to me. And I feel that I am owed something. Someone has wronged me, and I am owed an apology, or an act of kindness to make up for whatever, or something along those lines. I feel entitled, and upset until this debt I've assumed has been paid. I think that this is the kind of anger Jesus was telling us to avoid. It is inherently selfish, and we as Christians are supposed to be selfless. So true, healthy, 'righteous' anger, would occur whether the misdeed was towards us or someone else, regardless.

Now stay with me. I know this isn't really revolutionary, but it led me to a thought that's changed my perspective on life and grace significantly. The other day, I was doing what will remain an unnamed kind act for an unnamed kind person, and I thought to myself, This person probably won't even notice that I'm doing this. They probably won't even thank me. This annoyed me to the point where I started getting preemptively angry at this person and considered leaving my kind act unfinished. But then I remembered what I had thought about anger, and I thought perhaps that this perspective could apply to more of life. I noticed that most negative thoughts occur when we start to feel owed something. But if we could just operate on the basis of believing that no matter what, we are owed nothing whatsoever, nothing at all--then it would be a lot easier to love, to be humble, to be confident, and to rely on God instead of others. It would really change everything around. Jesus said to lend without expecting repayment. And in one translation of the Lord's prayer, he says "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." If someone asks for your cloak, give him your shirt as well.

If this is old news to you, I apologize for boring your socks off. But it's a perspective that's letting me live life with a lot more ease and grace, and I thought I'd share it with y'all. God is great:)

Fitness.

So, I'm trying this new thing. A blog a week is my new goal. And I figure I might do better with said goal if I cut myself some slack. Not every blog is going to be very long, because I want to get in the habit of regularly writing. So, suffice it to say I no longer work at Suki's, and I am instead working at a wonderful thai restaurant. I get free thai food. It's lovely.

Today my blog is about fitness. I really want to be the type of person who is super in shape, and I always make these grandiose fitness plans which involve daily workouts and diet plans, long-term goals, calorie counting and timing and improving. I'm a planner, I'm a schemer, I'm an obsessive day-dreamer! (excuse the rhyme, please.) But these grandiose plans almost always fail. I will stick with it passionately for a week, maybe two--maybe a month if I'm lucky--and then some life situation will give me the perfect excuse to stop. The last excuse was a sprained ankle. I know, it's a pretty good excuse not to work out. But still. Today I did my first yoga workout in over a month, and I had to take it really slow, because some angles just aren't quite jiving yet with Mr. Ankle-of-the-sprain-and-contusion (still don't know what 'contusion' means). I had to really, really, REALLY listen to my body in order to work out without injuring myself yet again. And I found that this was incredibly helpful. What if, instead of making long-term plans and schedules and calorie counters, I just listened to my body on a day-to-day basis, and did what I, with my limited knowledge, knew to be best for it on any given day? When I do get a workout in, I feel great afterwards. When I do eat healthily, I feel great afterwards. If I focused on each individual day--living in the present instead of being trapped in a never-ending and oft-ambiguous future--then my long term goals will, most likely, sort of work themselves out. But if I focus on making plans and continually failing at them, I will just be a person who fails all the time. And that's no fun. Nor does it really get the point of what healthy living is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about health (go figure).

So, my new goal (besides blogging once a week) is healthy living. I'm going to take it one day at a time, and I'm going to listen to my body. Because I'm finding more and more that my body knows generally what it needs...it's me that tends to get in the way.