Filed under: Uncategorized
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-e-jones/at-health-care-town-hall_b_253125.html
Filed under: Uncategorized
I loathe cliches. As a writer I avoid them, as an intellectual snob I mock their philosophical emptiness. Yet I have discovered that in times of crisis I return to the greatest cliche of all: God. Or religion, really.
This week has been The Week of Really Shitty Things. Work was ridiculous, a friend of the family died young, my brother was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery and today my grandfather called and responded to my obligatory greeting with the information that no, he was not doing well. In fact, he’d just been diagnosed with cancer. And as this week-long lesson in bad karma draws to an end I admit that very briefly, I wished I could pray.
Agnostics don’t pray. We consider it an exercise in futility. But today I longed for the simplicity of religion. Religious faith requires no thought. It does not doubt, it does not rail at the heavens, it does not ask why. These are all reasons why I do not trust religious faith. Today, they were the reasons that I missed it.
I have no desire to return to Christianity. That would be the equivalent of a dog returning to its vomit. So this is not the lament of a prodigal daughter. Rather, this is the truth. It is how I feel. And I am telling it to the world (or at least the small part of the world that reads my blog) because I believe people are not honest as often as they should be. It is as hypocritical for an agnostic to deny her doubt as it is for a Christian to deny hers. Doubt is part of being human. So is pain. They are unavoidable realities. Fortunately love is too, and one does not need God to know love. It will be love that pulls me through this week and the next and the others after that. It is love that will save me. And it is why I mourned the loss of my religion no longer than an instant this long, rainy evening.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cedars, Cedarville University, Christianity, feminism, journalism
Cedarville University, never the greatest fan of academic freedom, has finally shut the door on its student newspaper. CU’s Public Relations department had censored the paper for about a semester in order to limit controversial content, but apparently those censors were not conservative enough for CU.
I take a certain amount of pride in knowing that my articles annoyed the trustees of Cedarville University. It means I did my job. I made people think, and the people who refused to think simply got angry as they always do. I didn’t think it was possible for my opinion of Cedarville to drop, but it has. News flash, CU: Censorship is not ok. You don’t have the right to tell people what to say unless they are participating in hate speech. You are not my babysitter. You are not my parent. You are not my pastor or my counselor or my conscience. Your job is to educate me, and you have failed this job miserably.
I feel that I’ve wasted tens of thousands of dollars on this school. CU specializes in brainwashing, not education. It’s also difficult not to see this as a personal attack. I’m aware that my articles only contributed to the problem; they did not create the problem. The world does not revolve around me and My Edgy Feminist Style. But I do think I’ve been misunderstood, and that no one’s bothered to correct the misunderstanding. Why is it so terrible to identify oneself as a feminist? Feminism is not so radical as people seem to think. Feminism is about equal respect and equal opportunities–no more and no less.
I don’t want to go down in history as that liberal feminist girl. Who would? I don’t want to be defined by my politics or my ideology, and yet because I am outspoken, that’s the label that CU’s administration and student body has pinned to me. It makes me easier to understand. I’m a known quantity and I’m that much easier to dismiss.
And they did. They dismissed me, and my friends, and all the work we put into the student newspaper. That’s not all right. And we won’t be quiet about it. I invite you to visit the following two sites: http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=ydzqSHptgsHpmY9qRdCgCfjxVnfGrShq and http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/04/cedarville_stud.html for more info on Cedarville’s latest Epic Fail.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cedarville University, Christianity, conservative christianity, Dannah Gresh, modesty
Note: the student newspaper of Cedarville University (which has been shut down by the university since this letter was written) is called. Not The Cedars, but apparently this alumna did not know that.
Now for the letter, which was sent to Cedars’ editor, and not to me:
Is it coincidence that one of the nations most vocal opponents to immodesty hit the Cedarville campus the same day that Sarah Jones’ critique of Sanctify Ministries’ Modesty Panel, sensationally entitled “Immodesty and Misogyny,” hit The Cedars? I don’t believe in coincidence. I believe God ordains things. With that supposition, I couldn’t just turn a blind eye to what I saw in my alma maters newspaper on March 19, 2009.
Let’s start with where I do agree with the opinion piece. First, “modesty [does] go both ways.” Both men and women have a great responsibility to refrain from dressing like sex objects. Agreed. Second, there is never an excuse for a guy or a girl acting out on sexual thoughts regardless of how someone near them has dressed. We should “hold them responsible for their actions.” Agreed.
Ironically, these two points of agreement are actually where I begin voicing a concern with the Sarah. If she can make the statement that “modesty goes both ways,” why is it offensive that a women’s ministry led by women would invite women to an event to learn a little more about how they can do their part? Does modesty really go both ways? Either it does or it doesn’t. But you can’t say it does and then complain when women take responsibility for their part. Instead of applauding the attempt, it was compared to the “morality police [she’s] read about in Saudi Arabia and Iran.” Talk about sensationalizing an issue! Sounded like the atheists and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State who have sounded out against me as I speak out against immodesty in publications like USA TODAY, The Chicago Tribune and the Dallas/Fort Worth Star Telegram. They once called me “the Taliban!”
As far as stating that we should hold men who think sexual thoughts “responsible for their actions,” I agree. But in standing on this soap box, Sarah led those who did not attend the event to believe that the panel and event hosts blame women for the sexual thoughts of men. I did not attend the event, but I spoke with many who did. I understand that the men on the panel repeatedly stated their own responsibility for their thinking saying things like “We understand that this is still our problem” and “We are responsible.” One person told me they stated it “over and over.” There was no blame placed on women. Furthermore, I understand that even though only four men attended the event and that it was created for women, the panel and planners took time to discuss the kinds of clothing that men wear which causes temptation in women! This topic brought the male panel to a loss of words, so the mic was taken out into the crowd of women so they could clear the air about how guys need to be modest, too. Did you miss that part of the event, Sarah?
What I missed is how the word misogyny was used in the headline of this piece? Exactly where did that come into the picture? I’m not even sure where to add the thought that the headline seemed to be something set up to get people to divert their attention from the real issue of modesty to female hatred, which isn’t the issue at hand. (I think that’s called a straw man fallacy.) The issue at hand is modesty vs. immodesty.
Here are a few facts. In 2000, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, a group of OB/GYN’s committed to creating a medical cessation model to reduce teen sex listed the top five factors that place a teen (either male or female) at risk of sexual activity. One of those factors is “appears older than most.” How does a teen look older? By the way that they dress and present themselves. Of course, there are exceptions. Some students just look older, but in large part it is an issue of modesty. This factor has remained a indicator of risk since identified in 2000.
In 2007, the American Psychological Association released a task force report on the Sexualization of Girls. The findings of the two years of study state that music lyrics, Internet content, video games and clothing are now being marketed to younger and younger girls. The smutty content of the marketing is linked to eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression, and early sexual activity. Ironically, this early sexualization presented to young girls has “negative consequences on girls’ ability to develop healthy sexuality.” The report stated that “it is of concern when girls at increasingly younger ages are invited to try on and wear clothes designed to highlight female sexuality. Wearing such clothing may make it more difficult for girls to see their own worth and value in any other way than sexually.” (Apa Report, pg 14) Immodesty is linked to some pretty sad stuff, Sarah, and there’s nothing wrong with creatively addressing it.
If right about now you’re applauding me for writing this, you might be surprised that I’ve not been writing to Sarah at all. I’ve been looking for you! I’ll make a drastic assumption that if you agree with me you probably don’t hold to a lot of the same ideals as Miss Jones. As far as I can tell from the three articles she wrote for the March 19 Cedars she is a left-wing Democrat feminist who is possibly a supporter of abortion (“Standing on the Promises of Change”) and sympathetic to homosexual “rights” (“Lyons Dulls The Ax”). I could be wrong, but her writing voice overall leads any reader to these assumptions. And that’s a problem for me. The Cedars represents Cedarville. And I know that Cedarville as a whole does not define a woman’s role the same way that Sarah does in these articles. There’s nothing wrong with having a woman with this voice writing for The Cedars. What’s wrong is that you have given her so much voice. The lack of voice from a Biblical woman (egalitarian or complementarian) is a sad commentary on you, not Sarah. Women of Cedarville, I love you. You know that I do, but if you cannot represent and defend true Biblical womanhood in The Cedars where you have the support of godly faculty and staff at an outstanding Christian university, how do you expect to wage the war in the public sector when you have to speak to entities the likes of The Wall Street Journal and The Philadelphia Inquirer?
Ask the Lord what your role in re-shaping The Cedars might be. Ask him if you’ve been complacent in representing the Biblical view of womanhood in your own student paper. And then, obey him in whatever he calls you to do.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cedarville University, Christianity, conservative christianity, Dannah Gresh, modesty, patriarchy
This article probably won’t make much sense to the fortunate readers who do not attend Cedarville University. However, I believe that conservative Christianity’s obsession with female modesty is oppressive and therefore I’m reposting my article here. I will also post a response from Dannah Gresh, the conservative co-author of Lies Women Believe.
Here’s the article:
First, a disclaimer: I am not overly concerned with the issue of modesty. I do not get up in the morning and worry about the tightness of my jeans and T-shirts because I find tight clothing uncomfortable, and therefore I do not wear it. I do not see myself as temptation on two legs (it’s an objectifying concept, and after all I am a feminist). Yet according to the men of Sanctify Ministries’ Modesty Panel, that is exactly what I am: temptation.
I find the very idea of an all-male Modesty Panel offensive. To me, it reeks of the morality police I read about in Saudi Arabia and Iran. But in the interests of fairness and yes, curiosity, I gave the Modesty Panel a try. I submitted four questions for the men and attended the Panel’s meeting on March 12th to hear their answers.
Although my particular questions were not answered, I received great insight into the mind of the typical Cedarville male. Since I have a teenage brother and graduated from a public high school, much of what was said came as no shock. It was the ideology behind the women’s questions and the men’s answers that I found truly shocking.
I’m not sure what to call this ideology. It goes beyond simple sexism, since the men claim that they are trying to respect women. But it certainly contains elements of sexism. There is no other reason for a group of men to feel that they have the righteous authority to tell a group of women how to dress. Clothe the sexism in religion, and it becomes even more insidious.
“We’re not trying to tell you what to do,” was a phrase repeated many times throughout the Panel. But when a religious man tells an equally religious woman that if she wears a particular piece of clothing it will force him to envision her naked, that is as good as a command.
The questions ran the gamut of the female wardrobe. From skinny jeans to wedding dresses, no article of clothing was left undiscussed. And the men were more than happy to offer their candid opinions. “Don’t wear those pajama bottoms to Chucks, girls, because if you do that it makes boys think about bed, and that makes them think about sex.” “Be careful how you sit, because sitting a certain way makes you look easy.”
The responsibility of modest behavior was put completely on women. In a subculture that reveres male headship, this is ironic. We women are told that men are our divinely ordained leaders–just don’t expect them to control their thoughts around an errant bra strap.
I believe this double standard is best illustrated by the conversation I had shortly before the Panel began. A male student stated that relaxing the dress code to include jeans would encourage women to dress immodestly. “I shouldn’t have to look at that!” he complained. When I asked him why he was looking at women like that anyway, he stared at me and exclaimed “That’s just how we’re wired!”
That is a cop-out. It is the coward’s response to a personal problem that he is not willing to confront. Should we excuse the alcoholic because that’s how she’s wired? The pedophile and the murderer are not excused for their crimes because of some genetic predisposition. Any student of psychology can tell you that some criminals are predisposed to criminal behavior. But this is the bottom line: we still send those criminals to jail. We still hold them responsible for their actions.
Modesty goes both ways. Women have a responsibility to themselves and to their male peers to refrain from dressing like sex objects. However, even if a woman fails this responsibility, men have a responsibility to respect her as a human being. They do not have that duty simply because they are men, but because they are human beings and women are their equals. And if a man can’t look at a woman in pajamas without thinking about sex, the problem is probably not with the woman’s pajamas.
Filed under: Christianity, Uncategorized | Tags: religion, Unchristian, Gabe Lyons
In his book Unchristian (which he co-authored with Dave Kinnaman), Gabe Lyons examines the results of a nation-wide survey that revealed that people outside the Christian faith typically have poor perceptions of Christianity. Lyons worked a researcher for the Barna Group and now serves as the founder of the Fermi Project. I spoke with him on March 26th when he visited my university.
Q: What is the most common reaction you’ve received to Unchristian?
LYONS: Actually it’s been a very good reaction. We weren’t sure that would be case, we thought there would be folks who wouldn’t want to hear these difficult things about themselves that we were describing and researching. But the reality is it’s been interesting to see how widely received it’s been. Like almost across the board with different types of groups that some people might not have thought would have embraced it have done so. So we’ve actually gotten very little negative feedback. Maybe we should have gotten more!
Q: So how do you react to some of the criticisms that you have gotten, that it’s a good thing that Christians are disliked by the world, that we should be anti-homosexual and judgmental?
LYONS: I think it’s absolutely false. If we look at Jesus as one example, when He comes on the scene 2000 years ago, that He embodied something 100% different from the religious people of the day that you could have pegged with these perceptions…judgmental, hypocritical. In that day, the religious were the ones who hated Jesus and were part of his crucifixion. For me, if we were hated for perceptions like “Christians are annoying because they’re so kind, so loving, they care for people so much that we think it’s fake,” then it would be a completely different story. But the perceptions we got back are really across the board the opposite of how we’ve been called to live. Some folks have an ax to grind, maybe because they’ve gotten a negative reaction when they’ve presented a witness to somebody. They see that as a mark of credit towards them: “I must have done something right because the gospel’s offensive.” The reality is the cross can be an offensive thing to a sinner when they first recognize it, but people shouldn’t ever be offended by the messenger, because that really comes down to 2 Tim. 2:24 and 25. The spirit of the Christian in any kind of discussion should be civil, should be to provide an answer but in a gentle way. So how can you have those kinds of relationships and conversations and still have that perception, I don’t know.
Q: In your book, you assume that all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. So what about Christians who interpret the Bible a little differently, or even Christians who are in the GLBT community? Aren’t you just reinforcing the anti-homosexual stereotype by making this assumption?
LYONS: Obviously that was a tough one to write about culturally. Where we landed on is a lot of the definitions we give to human beings are derogatory, so even naming people as homosexuals is not consistent with how we talk about other human beings. We don’t call other people ‘heterosexual.’ We call them by their names. Part of this whole labeling idea that’s happening culturally that Christians have really fed into is not the way that Christ necessarily viewed people. He sees the woman at the well. Does He call her a prostitute? Is that how He sees her, as somebody in sexual sin when the reality is even though He knows that’s part of her background He sees in her the image of God and what she can become. He tells her to go and sin no more but He treats her like a human being. Instead of labeling people as gay, straight, bi, whatever our world wants to put on people, we need to see people as human beings made in the image of God. I don’t think we’re feeding into the current stereotype, but our main point in the book is that homosexuality doesn’t seem consistent with Christian discipleship. But we’re not the ones who are ultimately called to judge that. Unless we’re willing to talk about every other sexual sin, we shouldn’t be camping out on this whole homosexual deal. Let’s talk about pornography, let’s talk about adultery, let’s talk about any number of sexual sins and make them all part of a bigger discussion about sexual brokenness. That’s the better conversation.
Q: Will you be writing any more books based on further research?
LYONS: I’m working on a book now that is not based on research as Unchristian was, but it will deal with what it looks like to be Christian in the West. How do we be faithful but also credible? I don’t think the two are exclusive of one another. I think we can be faithful Christians and also be very credible, respected, and civil as we really embody the gospel and its truth. That book should be out next spring, in 2010.
Q: Do you have any practical suggestions for Christians who want to reach out to the secular world but haven’t had much exposure to unbelievers?
LYONS: There’s nothing better than just jumping into any scenario, just working alongside people in a non-profit or social situation happening in the city. You can’t just sit in a classroom and learn about how to interact with non-Christians. It becomes a big project. When you get into people’s stories and care enough to ask people about their stories what we find is that things are way more complex than we ever thought, sitting in a classroom trying to learn about it. The reality is when you show God’s love to people that what comes with that is an understanding of their condition and the realization that “Who are we to judge this person or look down on them?”
Q: Tell me a little bit more about the Fermi Project.
LYONS: It’s a non-profit that’s focused on helping people understand what it looks like to redeem cultures, to help faithful Christians understand that this is part of our call to Christian evangelism and discipleship. So we’re trying to educate and expose Christians to what our culture looks like today and what will it take for the gospel to go forward, what might it look like 20 years from now and how we can be creating that future, not just reacting to everything. Www.qideas.org is where everything feeds right now, even more than Fermi, because we’re trying to create a space where people are learning big ideas about all of this.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Christianity, conservative christianity, feminism, fundamentalist Christianity, religion, sexism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/19/gender.religion
In her article “I’m Not Praying” Cath Elliot makes the claim that religion is anti-feminist. “Christianity is and always has been antithetical to women’s freedom and equality, but it’s certainly not alone in this.” she writes. “It’s the patriarchy made manifest, male-dominated, set up by men to protect and perpetuate their power.”
Although Elliot does have a point–religion has been used to justify horrible human rights abuses that include the systematic oppression of women–her thesis is flawed. Religion is not inherently anti-feminist. Neither is Christianity. Individual Christians are often sexist, as are millions of people who may or may not be religious. The fact that the Christian God is portrayed as male doesn’t make Him sexist; if we want to be really theologically accurate, God is a Spirit and doesn’t even have a gender. He’s even ascribed female characteristics at certain points in the Bible.
There’s the problem of the Old Testament, of course. The Old Testament appears contradictory in its treatment of women, first treating them as property but also featuring strong women like Mariam, Deborah and Jael. The two books named for women are in the Old Testament, and both feature women who blatantly used their sexual power to achieve their own ends. These women are still celebrated by Christians, although the fact that Ruth “lay down” with Boaz and that Esther was a concubine are usually ignored.
I think it is Christianity’s traditional attitude toward women that feeds Elliot’s perception. My personal experience has been similar to hers. Most conservative Christians I know are sexist at least on some level. Some are more vocal than others. Worst of all, the women of this movement allow themselves to be oppressed. They are taught the lie that a woman’s place is at home, that she cannot preach or teach men, and that her main function is to be a subservient breeding machine for the head of the household. This is propaganda on the scale of Orwell’s Doublespeak, only this time the Party’s slogan (“War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength”) is lauded as Biblical truth.
Christian women have taken gradual steps toward gender equality. The United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Reformed Church of America, and certain Presbyterian and Anglican congregations permit female ministers. These churches recognize the inherent equality of women with men. But most denominations still forbid female leadership. The Southern Baptist Convention (with whom Cedarville is affiliated) recently reaffirmed its adherence to traditonal male headship. This creates a poisonous environment for women, and adds to the unflattering perception that people like Cath Elliot have of Christianity.
As long as women believe the conflicting idea that although they are of equal worth to men they are to be submissive to them, Christianity will be used as a tool to oppress and domineer females. Those of us who don’t swallow that lie need to take a stand. We need to reject the false dichotomy projected by Christian patriarchy. Until then, Cath Elliot’s point stands largely unchallenged.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cedarville University, Christianity, election, God, Obama, Politics, religion
On a brutally hot day in the summer of 2008, Barack Obama visited a blue-collar town in the Appalachian mountains. That town is my town, and I was there to hear him speak. My friends and I had waited in line for hours, and sweat had glued my shirt to my back. I hate waiting in line. I hate getting up early. But I held out, and when I finally walked into that high school gymnasium I realized that the wait had been worth it.
You have to understand where I come from, and what kind of family I have. I am from the South, and I am the direct descendent of slave owners. In fact, my family still has the ledger with the slaves’ names, ages and prices. We are not racists any more, but that is my history. It is the history of many Southerners. There is a reason why Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in the South, and it is not because the South is an open, tolerant place.
Years of hearing racist jokes from my classmates and years of watching the Confederate flag displayed in pickup trucks had not prepared me for what I saw in that gymnasium. The South had come together. The gym was equal parts white and black. I never had any hope that I would ever see such a thing but on that day, I did.
The coal miners sat beside the residents of our low-income housing complex and cheered. As for me, I was busy absorbing the scene around me. I am a cynical person, and I boast a healthy distrust of politicians. I’d supported Barack Obama before he came to my hometown, but that morning convinced me that there was something unusual about this campaign. Obama had done what no other politician had been able to do. He had brought us together.
Fast forward to my return to campus. The reaction to Obama was what you’d expect from 3000 conservative Christians. I had my salvation questioned. I was called ignorant and foolish. I was told that Obama was the Antichrist, and I was told that even if he wasn’t the Antichrist his government would lead to the end of the world.
And do you know something? It already has led to the end of the world. The world as we know it is changed. It is over. And I believe that is a very good thing. Last night, I attended an Obama party thrown by a campus organization called P.E.A.C.E Project. It was the rowdiest party I’d ever attended. There were McCain supporters there, but they were there to support us. No one criticized anybody else. I saw people dance with complete abandon. I saw people with tears running down their faces. I heard a McCain supporter apologize for not understanding what Obama’s election meant to us.
We had been brought together again. Of course, this second time was not just Obama’s doing. God was there that night. And while I doubt he has a political affiliation, I think He was content. On that night, the descendents of slaves and the descendents of the men and women who had owned them danced together.
If I ever have children, and if those children ever ask me about this election, that is the story I will tell them. It is the story that warms me in spite of the insults I hear from ignorant people. It is the story that, for a moment, brought me frighteningly close to patriotism. It is the story of a people, and how they fought, and how they won.
Congratulations, President-Elect Barack H. Obama. Don’t let us down.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I had a grand mal seizure two weeks ago. The doctors still haven’t decided why it happened, and I’ve seen enough doctors in the past two weeks to last me two years. Anyway, the seizure has fried an already struggling brain. My memory has suffered the worst. I still have random gaps in my memory. It’s also been difficult for me to write coherently, so if my latest post seems a bit choppy, that is why. I’ve had no more seizures, and hopefully my brain is done convulsing for the time being.
I saw an ad today that really caught my attention. It asked, “How do you end a war?” Good question. I’m not sure how one advertises peace, but kudos to whoever designed it for trying. Anyway, it made me think. How do you end a war?
I’m a pacifist, which might come as a surprise. I’m not a vegan bong-smoking hippie, which is what most people seem to think of when they hear the word ‘pacifist.’ I just think that war is a completely deplorable, abhorrent practice. What gives us the right to take another human life? I don’t understand how a Christian can not be a pacifist. If we’re all made in the image of God, then killing another person is, in a round-about sort of way, destroying a picture of God. The more we kill, the less we know of the divine. That’s a frightening thought. So I detest war. I want it to end. But I don’t know how to do it. It’s something on which I’ve spent much thought. Eventually I came to the conclusion that the only way to end war is to change human nature, which is impossible. Even if we eliminated poverty and provided the world’s population with an education, there would still be war. Educated rich people can be quite greedy. Greed is cause enough for war: greed for power, greed for land, greed for glory.
In short, people aren’t perfect. Until we are, we will possess a bizarre need to conquer each other. War cannot be stopped. It can be limited, but human beings will always hurt each other. We can do what we can to prevent it, and we should. But it will still happen. Welcome to Earth.
