A Response To Some Other Article Some Place

The below is a response to an article posted in RELEVANT. The article can be found HERE and is called "Will the Internet Kill Christianity?". I feel a bit bad, in retrospect, posting such a long comment to this post. Very long winded, I doubt anyone will read it on there! (Definitely a TL;DR moment. :( )

Firstly, Where did all these atheists come from? Do they normally hang around here, or have they decided to amass at this article in particular? o_0


NOTE: It really was remarkable how many atheists showed up for the comments in this article. Generally Relevant attracts Christians, with only the occasionally atheist poking the more gullible members into arguing. But, wow, they were every where! I can only call them Trolltheists, since they weren't there to do anything but argue.

Secondly, the internet can be a great place to find information, but you should always take everything you see and everyone you meet with a great big bag o' salt. The anonymity that the internet grants means people can be as ruthless, cruel, dishonest, and underhanded as they want to be without suffering any kind of real consequences. This is why debates don't happen on the internet*, just screaming contests to see who can shout the longest and get the last word in. People online don't typically treat each other with the same dignity and restraint they would in person, because they "aren't really real people" online.

It's not a matter of exchanges ideas, understanding an opposing view points, or even trying to mutually figure out what to believe, it's about winning. And the only real way to win is to tear the other person down until they're crying on the floor, praising their opponent for their superior logic, and waving the proverbial white flag.**  Or if they won't give up, humiliating them in front of as many people as possible.*** As long as you come out on top, regardless of whether you're right or not, that's all that matters.

I've long since figured out that it's no use participating in the online community's "debate" when it deals with religion or politics. No one listens. All they ever do is talk over each other and trample over people in their rush to "win". That's not the kind of people I want to be associated with, and certainly not the kind of debate I want to be involved in.

However, a lot of people get online and are completely unaware of the environment they're stepping into. They don't realize that when they debate or argue with someone, what they're saying or thinking or feeling doesn't matter. They'll just keep being torn down until they convert or run away with their tail between their legs because it's always about "the win".

Thirdly, American Christians are astonishingly ignorant of their own faith. I suppose on a day-to-day basis, this is fine. (I mean, historically humanity has spent a lot of time being ignorant and getting away with it.) In real life you generally don't have to worry about someone randomly coming up to you, shouting about what a moron you are and then giving a 5 point dissertation on all the moronic things you've said, but online that's exactly what happens. Online, that level of ignorance is a faith killer.

So, yes, the internet can be a faith killer. If you walk into it thinking you know everything, or that what you know is enough, or not even knowing how ignorant you are, prepare to get torn apart from the butt up. You'll get chewed up and spat out and then have your virtual corpse danced on. That's just the kinda place the online community is if you aren't careful. And people aren't careful.

I've been an active user of the internet for 14 years. I have survived--nay, retained my humanity-- online by knowing where to go, where not to go, the kinds of people who are worth investing in, and the kinds of people who are basically trolls pretending to be human.

There's a lot of great things about the internet, but debating about religion and politics****? That's really not one of them. I stick with nerd stuff, and only certain places, because even being a nerd with opinions can be a dangerous thing on the internet.

*I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm talking about normal every day behavior online.
**Does this ever happen? I've never seen this happen, especially when dealing in politics and religion.
***This is pretty common though! It's practically an universal pass-time sport online.
****And by this I mean debating two opposing views, not necessarily the subject matter itself. It's possible to talk about religion or politics without it being a debate, but it's a tricky line to walk and most places can't do it. (Mostly because trolls come in and turn it into a debate. Trolls just can't help themselves! <3)

That Subtle Sense of Superiority

This all started with my husband linking to the article "Come As You Aren't" by R. C. Sproul.

I want to start off by saying I have a GREAT DEAL of RESPECT for Mr. Sproul. I like a lot of what he has to say and I want to make sure anyone reading this doesn't judge all his teaching by this one article. He's got a lot of great stuff, so don't be "scared off" by this one thing he's mistaken about. (I mean, he's only human! ;) )

I admit when I first read this I had NO IDEA what he was trying to say. I still think it's a messy article, like Sproul was just ranting or something and wasn't even sure what his actual point was. However, Mike translated it for me into a nice one paragraph easy-to-understand way. The meaning is something like this:

The gist of this article is that how we dress is an outward reflection of an inward attitude. That is, how we dress at church reflects our attitude towards God. Many people refuse to "dress up" because their attitude toward God is not of reverence or (holy) fear or respect, but because of selfish reasons ("It's more comfortable to dress this way"). Therefore, to show respect for God at church we should dress up, not down.

I have a couple of problems with this.

First, it's not Biblical. The inward-to-outward part has some credence, but the dressing up part does not. You can tell even Sproul knows this on some level, as he doesn't quote any scripture at all but uses vague theology principles to back up his belief (and even then he miss applies these principles). For a man who puts so much stock in scripture and church history, he sure does ignore a lot of it when it comes to this one issue.

Second, scripture teaches the exact opposite of what he's saying. Any time dressing up is mentioned in the New Testament, it's always in a negative light. This article has a ton of verses dealing with the subject. Please read the article I linked to, as they give a very balanced answer about dressing up.

It should be pointed out that women are told specifically not to "dress up" for church in scripture. In fact, it is implied that dressing in a plain and simple manner at church shows humility and reverence to God, where as dressing up shows pride and a lack of respect for God.

Third, history is on my side. It wasn't until the 1800s that people in the congregation started "dressing up" for church. (In the historical context, "dressing up" meant you had extra-fancy clothes for church.) Where as, prior to the 1800s, the congregation wore "street clothes" (anything clean and neat that was acceptable to wear in town). The shift of how people dressed at church was tied into the Industrial Revolution and the sudden upsurge in wealth and easy access to nicer materials. It was a culture based trend motivated almost entirely by pride and vanity; it had nothing to do with Scripture or common historical church practice. 

Lastly, I'll give Mr. Sproul some credit for being half right. What we are is sometimes a reflection of who we are on the inside. His conclusion is wrong about how that translates into real-world Christian living though.The Apostle Paul had it right for women. Dress simply and plainly, focus on what matters to God; a gentle and quiet spirit. By being plain on the outside it allows us to focus on what's on the inside.

If we are meeting our King at church, why are we dressing up? We are suppose to bring ourselves low before God, humble and contrite, showing him we understand our true station in life. We are sinners bought with a price, the price of his Son's life. We are to emulate Christ the servant, and be servants ourselves. Therefore, shouldn't what we dress to reflect a humble attitude, one of a servant and saved sinner, rather than one of a royalty? God blesses a humble heart, and dressing up (as proven with women) is not  conducive to a humble heart.

When I was discussing this article with someone, I was accused of being relativistic and post-modern ("faith is private, all religions are equal" etc)  in my outlook on how people should dress at church. I've been pointing back to scripture, with specific examples, while Mr. Sproul has only been able to come up with "it feels holy" and vague theological principles to back up his belief. How am *I* the one being relativistic?

I can't help it if Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10 already sets a precedent about how to deal with differing convictions in the church. If Mr. Sproul has to dress up to feel like he's respecting God, than he should do it. It's just that, as a leader, he ought to go out of his way to say that people who are not dressing up at church are no less respectful to God than him. By not making this distinction, he is basically saying the only way to dress at church and show God respect is to dress up, therefore we can judge a person's respect for God based on what they wear. (Which I don't think he believes at all, so he might as well just nip that kind of thinking in the bud!)

Anyway, this was a great romp through scripture and I learned something I had not really thought much about before. I, as a woman, must be careful how I dress in church, but not in the typical "must be modest" way. Rather, I must not dress flashy or in a way to gain attention. My focus at church should never be what I'm wearing (and other people shouldn't be focusing on what I wear either) but on the inward beauty that really matters to God.

I have never been a flashy dresser, but that doesn't mean I don't dress for selfish reasons rather than Godly ones. When it comes to church attire, I typically try to blend in with everyone else. The idea being if I look like them, they won't judge me so harshly or have as many preconceived notions as to the type of person I am before they get to know me. I often find myself in the uncomfortable position of compromising my beliefs on what's acceptable to wear so that other people won't give me the stink eye. And looking back, I feel sad for myself. What a terrible mindset to go to church with!

Well, I can only change the future, not the past! Next time I go to church, I will dress exactly how my conscience dictates. I will not let myself be intimidated by people who only look at the externals. I will stop focusing on the externals myself! I will put my focus where it needs to be, on the inner qualities God truly cares about. :)

Because the Bible Tells me so...

Fundamentalist say, "I believe because the Bible says so."

Evangelicals say, "I believe it because XYZ proves it."

Is one better than the other? One more spiritual than the other?

I think that to say "The Bible says so" and claim that's a reason to do something is childish. This is the kind of thing you say to kids when they ask questions they can't understand the answers to. It's OK for a while, but it's not the kind of response that can last for forever. Eventually you have to grow up and study the Scriptures and delve deeper than just "it told me so".

Also, using the above method makes it extremely easy to manipulate the Bible into making it say what you want it to say. When you ignore culture, history, and years of church theology, you make yourself an easy target for liars and thieves. You become prey to bad theology, putting unnecessary strain on yourself at best, and leading yourself into disobedience against God at worst. (Hello everyone, this is exactly why we have so much bad theology now!)

Lastly, when you live in a culture that says the Bible is just a bunch of myths or doesn't know anything about it, saying "because the Bible says so" will make no sense what-so-ever. If you are trying to preach Christ and Him crucified, it would help immensely to answer people's basic questions like: Did Jesus really exist? (Give people a break, it's been over 2,000 years since Jesus came down to earth. It's not like when Peter got up and preached to the Jewish crowd--who already knew Jesus existed and that he'd died.)

Why should they believe what the Bible says? Because they have a burning in their bosom? Are we Mormons now that we depend on feeling over reason? It's not like they know you (other than that sketchy religious person who keeps telling them about Jesus), so they have no reason to trust what you have to say. 

People need a reason to believe. Whether it's because you've shown yourself to be a truthful person, or because the Bible has shown itself to be a truthful book, a reason is needed. Paul and Peter and many others after them always gave a REASON to believe, a reason for their hope! So too, should we remember that the "Bible says so" will not be enough of a reason for many people to believe.

THAT BEING SAID....

How much proof does a person need? Some people just won't believe. You can throw every historical and scientific fact at them and they will simply brush you off as a religious nut. There's no point in chasing after people who adamantly refuse to listen. (This is what is called "throwing pearl before swine.")

And how many times must we (within the church) re-examine scripture before we believe it? We've got 2,000 years worth of church history at our finger tips! If our Christian fore-fathers have not figured it out already, I highly doubt we will. In which case it's either time to move on or just believe what's already been said on the matter.

There is, perhaps, an element of pride here too. There are things in the Bible that will just look foolish to the world. No matter how you rationalize and sugar coat it, the world will look at you and laugh. I think many Christians find the idea of being publicly shamed like this for the Gospel very very uncomfortable. They don't like it. So they try to make themselves look reasonably, clever, and intellectual, because they can't bear the thought of looking foolish.

Lastly, we defend scripture because we believe it to be true, not because we're trying to decide whether it is true or not. Let's not kid ourselves, we have a bias toward scripture. We already believe the Bible is true. Everything we say and do is based off this. So lets not pretend like we're being objective about our arguments. We're not. We're totally and completely defending our bias. (And lets also admit that that's OK, everyone has a bias.)

The Problem of Womenhood

I just finished reading "Feminine Threads - Women in the Tapestry of Christian History" by Diana Severance. This is a fascinating book that goes through the history of the Christian church and show cases various women who did extraordinary things. The reason it was written was to show that modern feminism has pretty much made up large portion of history concerning women and how they were treated in Christian churches and Christian influenced societies.

Some interesting highlights...

While I knew that marrying young was common in ye-old-ancient-times I never quite realized *how* young. It was common for women to marry at 12 or 13 years old. When you think about Mary, the Mother of Jesus, you often think of her as an older woman, at least 16... but it seems likely to me she was closer to 12. This makes her willingness to follow God at the risk of being ostracized or possibly killed for getting pregnant out of wedlock even *more amazing*.

It was also disheartening to see how many of these girls were widowed before the age 18 years old. Not only did they have many miscarriages and lose their birthed babies to sickness frequently, it seemed like a husband staying alive until his 10 year wedding anniversary was rare. Can you imagine being 16 and suffering  that kind of lose?

Another interesting thing is that authority does not equal influence. Up until recently, only fringe groups in Christianity dared say woman had equal authority within the church as men did. Despite women historically never having positions of power (like being a pastor), history shows again and again that women had more influence over people then men did, both in their own communities and on national levels.

In fact, it's flat out amazing how influential women were despite the social (not Christian) confines of their day. Christian women often learned how to read, write, and (the ambitious) learned several different languages. There were some women who were so well versed in scripture and theology that the contemporary male leadership of their day went to them for advice. They formed societies to help the poor, sick, orphaned, and widowed. They were huge financiers of missionaries and theologians and the afore mentioned societies. In Roman Times (and some other times in history too) wealthy women opened up their homes to be used as churches. Queens (especially early on in Europe) would often lead their Kingly husbands to Christ (sometimes marrying them specifically for that reason!) and there by bring Christ to the whole nation. And then there's all those schools, orphanages, and hospitals specifically started by women too.

You will be hard pressed to find one single great theologian, pastor, missionary, or great evangelical movement that was not directly influenced and propelled by women. In some sense, if men were the head of the church, women were it's hands and feet. But even this is not a perfect analogy, as it implies only men made decisions, when women often took the initiative when they saw a need not being met (to the praise, by the way, of the men).

In Christian marriages, historically, women were treated with respect and valued as people. You will be hard pressed to find a religious text from antiquity that commands men to respect their wives and love them sacrificially, to the death. Yet that is exactly what Apostles told early Christians, and that's exactly what the Christian men of their day did.

Even Jesus, when speaking on divorce and lust, was actually advocating *for* women. It wasn't uncommon for men to divorce their wives over anything (even a slight offense), so that they could remarry younger women. (Leaving their ex-wife destitute and with a social stigma.) Basically, Jesus was cutting this practice at the head and the feet by saying lusting after a woman when you are already married is as bad as adultery and divorcing your wife for anything but specific offenses and then remarrying was also adultery.

Speaking of Jesus, he was very pro-women. We have a hard time seeing this now, because of the cultural divide, but he very much treated women as intelligent and honorable. He taught women directly, something unheard of for his day. He talked to them in public, directly, which was shocking. He healed them and raised them from the dead. Before he died, Jesus remembered his mother, and made sure someone was there to provide for her once he was gone. Women had the privilege of being the first to see the empty tomb and the first to see a resurrected Jesus. All this he did in a society were sometimes just touching a woman made you dirty.

In closing, it is unfortunate that we live in a society that demonizes motherhood, particularly mothers who choose raising their children as their vocation in life. Marriage and motherhood are extremely important, and only the prideful, spiteful, modern feminists of today have the foolishness to think otherwise. A stable and healthy society is always built on a stable and healthy home, and lets not kid ourselves: the greatest influence of a home is the mother. (Something history proves again and again.)

That being said, the push from conservatives to try and bring motherhood and marriage back to it's rightful place of honor will likely end in failure. The problem is they're placing too much trust in a political system and the idea of changing society from the outside. That won't work, and you won't be able to talk people into it when all they can hear you saying is "Women should stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant."

I think there is also a tendency to lift up motherhood and marriage to the neglect of other legitimate vocations for women. It's important to remember that women don't have to get married to have value within the Christian community. It's also important to realize that motherhood is not the end-all be-all to a woman's life too. It's also quite possible to be a good mother and have a job--whether it's a ministry position or "for profit". None of these things have to be mutually exclusive, nor does one thing have to be better than the other. All of these vocations and paths can be--and have been--glorifying to God.

If conservatives want to make Christian femininity (including motherhood and marriage) to be honorable in our society again, it's time to stop talking and start doing. You can't make someone change their minds by arguing with them, but you can live your life in such a way that shuts them up. And we have plenty of women from the past and the present who live their lives in a way that would shut all those skeptics up if we put more effort into showing them off.

And that's all I have to say about it. Or at least that all I'm gonna write about it. Phew. ;)

Moving Very Slowly, VERY SLOWLY... Slower and slower and...

How do I put this?

For a long time I've felt a sort of pointless wandering about myself. What am I suppose to do? What's my purpose? Who am I? What's my worth?

I've always loved drawing. When I was younger I'd go through mountains of paper and never finish one picture. Just the act of drawing, of creating, was exciting to me.

As I got older I realized that people were expecting something of my art. It seemed that, specifically within the Church as whole, the only time anyone was ever truly pleased with my work was when it was "Christian". And by that I mean when it had a Christian moral message or blatantly referenced God or something Biblical.

This annoyed me. It's not that I didn't want God to be in my work, but there was something so fake about how I was going about it. I was not particularly interested in confining my creativity to easy moral messages and quick call-outs to God. It was shallow, it was boring, and it just wasn't interesting.

Why, I lamented, were Christians so easily amused by such shallowness? Why did they always settle for art and music and stories that were so simple? Why did they let themselves be satisfied with the uninteresting, the boring, the "safe"? Didn't they feel a calling for something deeper?

God is interesting. God is deep. God is never boring. Creativity that reflects God is inspiring, it's challenging, it takes our minds and hearts to new places, and when we're done we walk away somehow full, satisfied, better people then when we started.

I felt like I was being called in two different directions. One told me to be moral, upright conservative, predictable, easy to understand, "family friendly", and never talk about really difficult issues. Be good, and don't have too much fun. The other said; be wild, be free, make people laugh, make them cry, make them sigh with longing for a "otherness", follow those "bunny holes" to see where they lead, ask the disturbing questions. To reflect something beautiful and holy.

Inside of this slow nerdy person, there was a fire that burns all the time. It cries out to be free, to be wild, to reach out and grab something higher, purer, holier, than anything to be found on this silly little mudball of a planet. Always that desire was in the back of my mind, the back of my heart. And when I created, it felt like I was channeling that desire, that fire, I was giving it a place to go, and I was alive.

But for a while, I forgot. My heart forgot. I settled for something less, and I lost myself. Desire, what was that? Fire, what did it feel like again? What did it mean to be alive?

I became afraid. Who was I? Why was I here? What was I suppose to be doing? I lived in fear of losing myself, become less, of never really living again.

Recently, though, I got to thinking about it all over again. Did I really draw just to please other people? Because it was all I was good at? No, that can't be quite right. I liked showing off (obviously I'm not perfect) but I drew because I loved it. I knew I was free because I could draw. And when I drew, I felt free.

What have I been doing to myself these last 8 years? Am I total and complete moron? How could I have thought, even for a little while, that I could find happiness some where else? Why did I willingly chain myself down, making myself and everyone else miserable? I mean, seriously, what the crap?!

I feel like I woke up. Or more like, I feel like I'm waking up.

I'm a very slow person. Just, in general, I tend to take things very slowly. So it took me a long time to realize something was wrong, then to figure out what it was, then to know how to fix it, and then how to regain my equilibrium.

So here I am, very slowly getting myself back in order. And I realized something, I realized what I want to do.

I want to create something that reflects, even just a little bit, of the wonder and holiness of God.

Lets get this straight, I don't mean I'm gonna be making any masterpieces or writing great literature. I just don't have that in me and the pressure to do it would kill me creatively. I certainly don't mean I'm gonna make anything "American evangelical Christian". Ugh. I'd rather never draw again than do something substandard and restricting like that.

How do I describe it? You know when, as a Christian, you feel a... an... inner flame, right? I'm sure there's some sort of proper word for it but I'm not quite sure what it's called. It's that thing that makes you happy that God exists. It's that thing that's constantly tickling the back of your mind and heart and reminding you that there's something more than just what you see, feel, or hear. It's that thing that wraps you in peace, that tells you you're forgiven, that scolds you when you've done wrong.

That thing, I want to show that to other people. I want to make something that feels like that.

This isn't about converting people to Christianity. The simple method is best when it comes to that. You want people to be Christians? Then you share Christ and his Resurrection and live like it matters. Anything less is just making things complicated.

No, this is all about my longing to just bring a little bit of heaven down to earth. I want to reflect a bit of God's glory and goodness in the only way I know how: to be creative and to do it well. And if I am ever so fortunate, perhaps something I do will help someone else or significantly change their course of life (in the good sense).

I can do it, I know I can do it. Not because I've got something in me to do it, but because surely God wants others to know of His goodness, holiness, and all that makes Him worthwhile? And if He's with me, then how can I not succeed? So I can definitely do it.

But slowly. Very slowly.

I ain't got nothin' better to say.

I keep trying to write something and it keeps coming out wrong. Or maybe I've got so much thought in my head that one single blog can't hold it all.

A Summery:

There's a lot of evil in this world, and it makes me want to punch people.

There's a lot of good in this world, and it makes me wish there was more of it.

I wish my government wasn't so corrupt.

I wish people would make up their minds.

Why does my cat keep having problems?

Church

I might actually be able to go to church today. Normally I can't because I'm not able to wake up early enough for morning services (including the 11am ones). This is because my husband works evenings, and so do I, which means we're "day sleepers". Apparently a life style that does not meld very well with church attendance.

I have tried depriving myself sleep to go to church. All this has done is made me incredibly cranky and unable to remember anything I heard at church. I feel like it's pointless going to church if that's how I'm going to behave.

Why, oh why, have churches gotten rid of evening services? I like small group studies as much as the next, but it's incredibly inconvenient for any new person to the church to try to figure out where and when small groups are being held and which group they ought to be in (as no one knows them well enough to place them). I've tried contacting people, trying to get someone to help us, but no one does.

It also feels invasive when you (or me), a new person, tries to join. It's like you're the odd man out who doesn't know anyone or how anything goes and everyone treats you slightly suspiciously. (Or like they're trying to win you over.) It just doesn't feel natural.

There are a few churches that still have evening services, unfortunately they are not the churches I want to go to. It's mostly Baptist churches that still come together in the evening. And they are..... the more conservative bent Baptist churches. Which might have been fine 4 years ago, but I'm still recovering from Faith Baptist. (A type of church I don't ever want to go to again.)

The thing with church attendance is it's a choice between rarely seeing my husband and go to church, or see my husband all the time and never go to church. The thing is that while I value church, I value my marriage more than it. And I can't have a marriage if I never see my husband.

This is a no win situation for me. Either choice will make me unhappy and I've long since realized that. Some people might say that I'm putting my marriage before God by not going to church. However, my view is that both church and marriage are a God-centered activity. Neglecting either hinders my relationship with God.

That being said, in the practical human aspect, I can't have a relationship with a husband who's never there. God is always there, He is always available. I can have a relationship with God even without going to church, though I know that is not optimal. I can't have a relationship with my husband if I never get to see him.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not so stupid that I think one can have a perfect relationship with God without going to church. Church has value, church is part of a healthy Christian life. I value church, I like church! Even after that horrid experience in Misawa I still want to go to church. I still want to be a part of a body of believers. It is something I value. In fact, I value it more for it's absence right now. I mourn about not going.

My current view is this: I look forward to the times I can go to church. I look forward to a day when I can go to church consistently. I have hope that day will come, and God will someday make it happen. Until then, I do my part to remain spiritually active and growing despite my circumstances.