What Does That Have to Do With Love?

A commenter recommended this article to me: I'm Christian Unless You're Gay.

It is written by a blogger named Dan, begging people of all beliefs to love one another unconditionally. Read it, and tell me what you think.

Then, you can read below to hear my thoughts.
______
 

In general, I think this guy is totally right. He wants people to be kind, respectful, and loving, regardless of the differences which separate them, and he reminds readers this same principle is found in all the most dominant religions. He's right!

If I had to label his thesis statement, I think it's this one:

“I know there are many here who believe that living a homosexual life is a sin. Okay. But, what does that have to do with love?...What does that have to do with love? Come on. Don’t we understand? Don’t we get it? To put our arm around someone who is gay, someone who has an addiction, somebody who lives a different lifestyle, someone who is not what we think they should be… doing that has nothing to do with enabling them or accepting what they do as okay by us. It has nothing to do with encouraging them in their practice of what you or I might feel or believe is wrong vs. right. It has everything to do with being a good human being.” 

Those actions: putting your arm around someone…walking through life with them…treating them with dignity even though they are different--that is the very definition of love. 

Jesus said it’s too easy to “love” someone who agrees with you. Even evil people love their friends and family. But you don't really understand the term until you've learned to "love your enemy." Jesus was hated both by critics in his day and many since then, but he died for all of us anyway. That’s real love. He was spit on by the guards nailing Him to the cross, but He said, “Father, forgive them.” 

That is real love.

Dan was sooooo very right with the above paragraph, that I was a little concerned when he said, "[loving people are] able to look at [others] and only see strength. Beauty. Potential. Hope… Isn’t that what love actually is?"   (emphasis mine)

Part of love is recognizing beauty and potential. And, like Dan, the Bible associates love with the word "hope."  (Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.)

But this last part about "persevering" makes me believe there is more to the story. What are we supposed to persevere through? That seems to indicate a change is coming, doesn't it? What did Dan mean when he said loves sees potential and "hope?" I think it suggests we are optimistic regarding the future of the person you love? If you really see potential in a man or woman, wouldn't you hope he or she reaches it? I don't think that "love" would leave people in a bad place, if there are things they can do to be better. Consider the alcoholic, or similarly self-destructive person. Their loved ones are the people who MOST want to see them change--not because they hate who they are, but precisely the opposite. 

I realize this is a delicate balance. Too many “religious people” think they can save strangers from their sin if they preach long enough, and it ends badly--even though taking biblical advice ultimately would help the sufferer. The fact remains, we must prove our love for others before we earn the right to speak about delicate issues. Without love, pointing out a person's flaws only hurts feelings and starts wars. 

For the most part, I think Dan would agree with me on all of the above. There was just one thing he said, which I'd like to question:

"[all religions teach] love for others as the basis for all happiness, and never did they accompany such mandates with a list of unlovable actions or deeds."     (emphasis mine) 

I believe this is the only sentence in the whole post with which I flatly disagree. Maybe he just worded it carelessly and actually believes differently than the quote sounds. But it seems to me that every, single religion (and every non-religious individual) DOES keep a list of unlovable actions. We each have a moral code--a sense of right and wrong--which is not a bad thing.  

 Our lists of unlovable actions often include: murder, greed, dishonesty, and selfishness, which we have good reason not to love.  Dan himself writes this entire post about something on his unlovable list: the act of being unloving.

He meant to say, I believe, that none of the religions have a list of deeds or actions which make a person unlovable, though the actions themselves are despicable.

I wouldn't call his actions "unloving," even though he speaks pretty harshly about the human condition because his "beef" is with behavior. He is allowed to write about how awful we treat each other and how we need to show love without being contradictory because “love” doesn’t mean “celebrating everything everybody does all the time.” Love is treating somebody with the same esteem and kindness you would IF YOU DID agree with everything they did. It is acknowledging a person's worth and making everything you say to them--whether praise or reprimand--retains their dignity.

When you truly love someone, you will have their best interests at heart, at all times. And that is why I returned to agreement with Dan when he wrote:

“I wish with everything inside of me that [my friend’s homosexuality] didn’t make any difference to others. I wish we didn’t all have to find ways that we’re better than others or more holy and saintly than others in order to feel better about our own messy selves. I wish people wouldn’t cluster entire groups of people together and declare the whole lot unworthy of any love and respect.” 

 

Part of me wants to get defensive along the lines of:

"Just who are these people 'declare whole groups of people unworthy of any love and respect?' Dan already mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church is hated by almost everybody else in the country precisely because the mainstream belief is they are WRONG. I can say with certainty that every, single church I’ve ever attended teaches that we all sin, and we should love our neighbor regardless of how his sin looks. Everybody I know agrees that telling "fags" that they will "burn in Hell" is NOT love, so just who is Dan talking about?"

But, I can't be too defensive because I realize the fact that churches preach unconditional love doesn’t mean their members practice it 100% of the time. And--just because we aren't radical, sign-carrying, name-calling bigots doesn't mean we always have a pure, graceful, loving attitudes.  Yes, I worry that telling Christians "not to judge" causes the pendulum to swing the other way--to a point where we aren't willing to confront anybody about things God clearly commands against, even when they are leaders in our own buildings! But, Dan wasn't talking about a Christian who gets away with sin because other Christians are too spineless to correct it. He was talking about communicating with love--with the believer AND the nonbeliever, whether in agreement or disagreement. Never, ever, ever forget love.  And, with that I will repeat, I completely agree.

----

To Sarah, the commenter who brought Dan's post to my attention, I want to repeat my apology.

The last time we spoke (under my post “If You Don’t Like MyTeaching…”) you told me you understood getting carried away with beliefs and struggling with words. You said, “I think it is a common issue for people with passion...” and I agree completely. There have been times my loving intentions have gotten lost behind the WAY I’ve delivered the message.  And, since love is an action, the delivery is important. If I didn’t deliver the message with love, then I wasn’t loving at all. There have been times I handled critics with respect (for instance, the comments section of Teaching Little Apes.) But, recently, I got off track.

You also said, “To be honest, I would rather be passionate and struggle with how to express it than lack passion.”   And I agree with this, too. Intense passion is bound to ruffle feathers, but it sure beats apathy. And, depending on the importance of the topic, sometimes we SHOULD be extremely passionate--and loud, in-your-face, and urgent.  

The reason I am passionate about some of the topics on this blog, is I believe it's more than opinion. This is about ultimate truth and whether my actions and your actions please the Creator. All of us must be here on earth for a reason, and it turns out we face a life or death issue: SIN. We deserve Hell, but the Son of God came and died on a cross so that our sin doesn’t have to separate us from Him.  We can be forgiven and spend eternity in Heaven, but we must actively accept Jesus’ offer. Those who get to know him personally will be saved.  When God asks me to account for all the things I’ve done wrong, Jesus will say, “She is with me. I paid for her ticket.”  But those who do not know Him personally will be sent to the pit of fire.  

So though I agree with Dan that our beliefs should not affect how we love, I do not believe that love ignores sin.  This would mean letting a loved one go to Hell. I will continue writing about selfishness, and how we can allow God to erase it a little at a time, because it is important. And I also write so that fellow believers can know they aren’t the only ones struggling to be good. (Some former posts about my struggles can be found in the “confessions” tab.)

 

But, in the meantime, my passionate hatred for unholiness probably will continue to flare, and some of my posts will come across as hatred for the people who DO unholy things, even though that isn't my intent. (As I explained, I'm a person who does unholy things myself sometimes.) I also recognize that some of the Bible’s messages leave people feeling uncomfortable no matter how loving we are. None of us LIKES the guilt and sorrow we experience when we realize we’ve messed up in God's eyes. But I will continue praying God makes me more like Jesus so that I can share even those hard-to-hear truths with love.

Jesus took the message, “You’re going to Hell without me” and made it sweet by doing what Dan recommended…putting his arm around sinners and giving them hope.

My Background: Throwing Away my Childhood

I haven't written a great deal about my history with Luke, but I have been inspired very recently to do so. Yesterday I read an article by a man who married young, the way I did, and it left me with a sense of boldness I don't typically feel regarding my highschool-relationship-turned-marriage...


Ordinarily, the topic makes me very self-conscious. Maybe it's because I started dating Luke during my insecure stage of life, and I've never really let it go....? Maybe I surrendered my confidence to the Devil a long time ago and didn't realize it. But regardless of why, I often feel as though my marriage is being scrutinized by the world. 

Even after almost eight years together, I feel the need to prove to others my level of commitment to my husband. I've always believed, secretly, that everybody was waiting for us to fail. It's a form of egotism--assuming people think negatively of me when they probably don't think of me at all! But this underlying hang-up makes it uncomfortable when somebody asks, "Why did you marry so young?" 

Instantly, I tense and my mind spins with defenses, to help the asker understand marriage wasn't just an impulsive decision made by a desperate girl, smitten with the first guy who said "I love you." I feel the need to assure the stranger Luke and I dated for over four years, and then I want to prove we're still doing fine in all categories. (Not drowning in debt. Luke doesn't beat me.) But then, sometimes, the asker follows up with questions which make me even more self-conscious:  "Didn't you feel like you grew up too fast? Why didn't you take your time and enjoy being young?" 

I never knew how to handle that situation....until.  

The above article reminded me that finding a spouse is a blessing from God, and being mature enough to do so early was a good thing. I don't mean to say people should get married as soon as they can, or that being young is the "right way" to have a wedding. But I think people should be ready for marriage as soon as possible, in terms of striving for adulthood. Young people should desire to leave selfish, childish ways behind them and accept responsibility, which is the mark of a "grown up." And, in turn, being a selfless grown up makes a person marriable, whether they end up getting married or not. 

I should be proud that I left youth behind and became marriable at a young age. I should be thankful God presented a marriable husband during the same time, so I didn't have to wait for that blessing. In our case, our biggest struggle was finding a few good mentors to give us the benefit of the doubt and show us how to make it work. 
---


In April of 2004, Luke asked me to "be his girlfriend." This was via Yahoo Instant Messenger. We were 16.  

A few days later, we exchanged class rings, and that's when our relationship became a public spectacle...at least, that's how it felt. We went to a small, Christian high school, so, literally, everyone knew about "us" within hours. Predictably, everyone had opinions about it. 


Generally, I loved being held to a higher standard by intimate friendships at Kokomo Christian. As a teenager who genuinely wanted to please God, I appreciated the accountability. You'd never hear me tell someone to mind their own business, while I ran off and rebelled. I mean, it's never easy to hear when you're wrong, but at the end of the day, I cherished the correction. And some of my best growing experiences happened while I was at KCS, sharing life with fellow Jesus-lovers.

Unfortunately, there were people at KCS who didn't love my relationship with Luke. 


At first, our biggest obstacle was...I suppose....skepticism? Understandably, most people simply didn't think a high school relationship had lasting power. So, we saw a lot of eye-rolling, and we heard comments about "one day, when we REALLY knew what love was." Even at the time, I knew why critics brushed us off. I would have done the same thing. But, simultaneously, I hated that there was nothing I could do to prove our seriousness except wait for time to tell.  

I distinctly remember school picture day our junior year, when one of my teachers asked if I'd worn Luke's ring for my portrait. When I said I had, she teased, "Twenty years from now, you'll wonder, 'whose ring was this?'"  She wasn't trying to hit my sensitive button, but I wondered why she couldn't imagine us together two decades later--or why she thought I wouldn't even remember the boy I'd been dating over two years by then. Most irritatingly, though, I couldn't figure out an intelligent way to rebut. (Somehow it seemed counter-productive to yell, "Nu-uh! We'll be together forever! Our love is real!!!") So, I said nothing and tried to accept that our school family didn't take us seriously.


As time wore on, the commentary changed just a little. Instead of apathy, there were two times we heard absolute objection about our relationship. 

A girlfriend of mine wrote a letter saying she felt Luke and I were "too close." I asked what she meant, since school rules prohibited public displays of affection, or ANY physical contact between guys and girls. And I insisted we weren't crossing physical boundaries away from school either. (Read: no sex.)  But she remained adamant that our connection was "dangerous," because we were creating emotional bonds which would hurt when we broke up.


A few days later, I asked a guy friend for his opinion (one I respected for his knowledge of Scripture, and who knew me, Luke, and the girl who wrote the letter). He responded with a letter of his own, in which he agreed with the girl saying it just wasn't right for high-schoolers to get too close. He explained the odds of Luke being "The One" God wanted for me weren't very good...so, why allow ourselves to get serious? He recommended using our highschool years to invest in lots of friendships, rather than getting tangled in a boyfriend-girlfriend one.
 
We were only 17. No jobs. No diplomas. And more than one person believed our interest in marriage was unwise--due to our immaturity.


The only trouble was, few people took the time to share how to become mature. I asked those two friends, point blank, "How would two God-honoring, maturity-pursuing individuals prepare for that magical "future" when seriousness wasn't bad?"  But it seemed this was the wrong thought-process; it was, perhaps, just evidence I was a desperate girl, trying to hang on to the possibility of a long-term relationship, when what I needed to do was let it go until I got older.

Meanwhile, I understood that being poor and diploma-less were problems, but we were moving toward fixing those things--with plans for college and interviewing other young-marriers about how they did it. We also received warning that life as newlywed students would be hard, but we also knew that waiting caused different kinds of difficulty and that "Marriage would be hard" no matter when we jumped in.  So, as far as I was concerned, people weren't giving us a definite reason to separate, except that most high schoolers don't understand love. Then, when we asked for enlightenment, most teachers, youth leaders, and other mentors only wanted to talk in abstract ways regarding "when we're older." 


Now that I'm an adult, I see why counseling a teenage couple about marriage could come across as enabling--or even pushing them into a commitment--instead of merely "educating." I understand the safest thing to do, as a minister or mentor, is recommend all young students "just wait" and spend plenty of time "growing up" before making big decisions. Most kids let advice go in one ear and out the other, so it's best to allow many years for maturity to stick!  

But I'm afraid youth pastors become so used to speaking about what kids "should do" then watching them do the opposite, that they have a hard time getting their hopes up when a spirit-filled teen makes responsible choices. Maybe it's almost too good to be true? But some kids really respond to messages like, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young...set an example...you are just as capable as any adult to glorify God....you can pray, study the Word, and prepare for your future spouse NOW..." buuuuut, they feel frustrated when they try to practice it and hear, "You're awfully young for a relationship."


Youth ministers, I don't mean to complain. You have a tough, tough job, and you do it well! But I encourage you to remember that--even despite the rebellious, hard-headed, unteachable kids in your group--some of them will listen. Some will receive God's word like seeds on fertile soil.  Please don't trample the fruit, when it's easier to dismiss a young person's ambitions as crazy than wonder if God is behind it. Don't look down on them, if they are ready to set a good example...


Anyway, to our delight, there were individuals in our lives ready to say, "If marriage is God's plan for you, then here is what you need to know." Through talks with my dad, Luke's grandpa, and groups of various friends/family---we learned that sometimes young relationships last.  What's more, it turns out a healthy marriage had nothing to do with luck and was entirely in our control. Love is an action instead of a feeling. If we wanted to stay in love forever, we needed to act lovingly toward one another, the way Jesus does. This actually was MUCH simpler than the mystical "future you will figure it out" vibes we had been given by nervous critics. And once I felt reassured we weren't WRONG to pursue commitment, we set to the task with teenage enthusiasm and energy. Thank God we weren't stuck in our ways or jaded by life to the point we threw in the towel before we'd begun. We were excited to start practicing sacrificial, selfless love, whether or not most teenagers chose the same.


----
Luke asked me to marry him in May of 2007, and we threw away our childhood the following year. I don't wish I was still young in the sense I miss getting away with foolishness. I don't wonder what I missed, "settling" for Luke. I'm proud of myself for never buying the crap about compatibility and trying to figure out what I "wanted" in a man (beyond godliness), and I'm proud that I was young when I began trading selfishness for true, sacrificial love. Praise be to God that He saw fit to bless me with a teachable, tenderhearted, Christlike man with whom I could grow up.

Critical Thinking T.K.O.

In another post (regarding the time I presented an if-then conclusion about Sarah Palin to a self-proclaimed critical thinker...who couldn't follow it), I linked to a study which found college students are not learning to think critically by the time they graduate.

In THIS article, the author suggest a big chunk of the problem is many teachers don't recognize critical thought themselves.

It's a long, academic-sounding article. But for somebody interested in the education process, it is fascinating! A student was told to use objective evidence to support their preference for a specific kind of music. Then, that essay (and one written by an adult who was part of the experiment) were given to teachers for grading. As the author explains, the instructions themselves reflect a common misunderstanding of critical thought, since they ask for objective justification of something which is subjective by nature: taste in music. The student's essay, "Rock Around the Clock," was written with "spark" and interesting stories--ultimately concluding that rock music is better than other kinds.  The second essay, "Can I Prove Rock Music is Better?" gave objective reasons why he/she couldn't assess music objectively.

Some of the things teachers said about the two essays (#1 being Rock Around the Clock, #2 being Can I Prove Rock Music is Better?):

1. Special Ed. Teacher: [#1] “Point total: 7. This essay listed three criteria on which to base a judgment. It gave examples of each — maybe better examples could be found. The writer attempted to analyze a basically subjective issue in concrete terms — what the songs do for them: not objective, but a fairly concrete assessment of music’s subjectivity. [#2] “Point total: 0. This essay did not seriously attempt to answer the issue at hand. Instead it concluded, quite lamely, that no objective statement of worth could be made. While this may be accurate in the broadest sense, no effort was made to justify that position.”

2. A Math Teacher: [#1] “I would give the first essay a 5 because it did not support the judgment well but did make many references.
[#2] “I would give the second essay a 3 because it is not very evaluative! It did analyze the subject but provided no real support of any judgment.”
 
3. A Math Teacher: [#1] “I would give this paper a grade of 7 because criteria were evident, analysis was good and it had lots of supporting evidence. [#2] “I would give this paper a 3 because criteria are given but nothing was analyzed and no supporting evidence.”
 
(As a side note: look how many times a teacher said the second essay "didn't offer evidence" or "support," and actually penalized the writer's correct conclusion that there is no objective way to support your taste in music. Did the teachers want more stats, figures, and "outside sources," assuming that's what it takes to think critically?)

Anyway, this article also lists comments from teachers who scored the second (better-written) essay HIGHER--but even those teachers seemed confused about WHY that one exemplified good critical thinking. For example:

An English Teacher: [#1] “Score: 3. The writer in essay one has discussed how he/she feels about rock and pop music, but generalities are given and his/her statements aren’t supported with evidence. The assignment is to ‘justify’ preference, not discuss that it makes him/her ‘feel good’ period. No criteria have been established, so the essay just rambles on about ‘feelings’ and not much else. Reasons and evidence are lacking. [#2] “Score: 5. This essay does a little bit better in attempting an argument. The essay establishes two ‘criteria’ on which to base his/her essay.... Examples of ‘answers’ in paragraph 3 are needed as evidence . . .  Paragraph 4 isn’t developed. Needs reasons and evidence/ examples. Weak Conclusion.”

There are many other direct quotes from teachers, and I encourage you to look at it! Also, read the evaluations of the critical thinking expert about what good deductive reasoning looks like, AND scroll down to where it says "Three examples of Student Reasoning." He explains what rational vs. irrational logic looks like.

I said this study fascinates me, and it does. But it also frightens me a bit. If teachers can't recognize good critical thinking, how can we hope the students will improve?

If You Don't Like My Teaching

An Open Letter to Victims:

This blog is not for you. Unless you want to be offended by an arrogant, out-of-control, right-wing nutcase, stop reading and go find something interesting on Youtube. (Preferably a talking animal or something else that won’t accidentally inspire you to make a personal change.)

I talk a LOT about individual responsibility around here, and I don’t buy that anyone in America is helpless to society. I believe everyone runs into obstacles (some legitimately unfair), but that most problems occur as a result of sin. And even truly mistreated individuals have the power to overcome it. This is good news because it means change is possible! Bad things can be fixed! 

Unless you like being a victim.  If you like blaming other people, or you’re not brave enough to take charge of the things over which you have control, then run. Run away! Don’t let me challenge you with my “you-can-do-it” insanity!

 I’ll use studies and statistics often. But I don’t fill each post with footnotes for two reasons:

1.      1. If you’re already inclined to disagree with me, you’ll find something wrong with my research anyway.

2.       2. A large percentage of my citations don’t come from a source in a science journal. They come from The Source: the Bible. If you have a problem with it, I dare you to fact check this Source for yourself. (Spoiler: MANY people have tried to disprove it and failed.) Meanwhile, if you practice the biblical principles I put forth, you’ll see they work 100% of the time.

  

Sometimes my style causes an uncontrollable urge to call me names and accuse me of having serious problems. But I only want to talk about ONE serious problem, which all of us has in common: sin stemming from selfishness. If you don't think you're a sinner, you’ll find nothing of value here.  If you think being a victim will work for you eventually—you like protesting the government, you blame your spouse/kids for your problems, or you want to enjoy lots of food/sex/recreation in hopes they make you happy, that’s fine! Just find another blogger for support.     

Here, you’ll see that selfishness which leads to disobedience of the Bible which leads to societal problems interest me. You might say that’s my specialty.  I’ve done a lot of thinking about it. I’ve done a lot of reading/observing. And this is where I put my conclusions... So, if you wouldn’t tell your English teacher, “I don’t trust all this stuff about verb tenses…where is the proof?”  (Or, if you wouldn’t insult the math whiz with, “You always have answers, and it makes you sound cocky. Is there anything you DON’T know, Mr. SmartyPants?”), then please don’t criticize me when I share what experience and practice have taught ME. Just find a teacher who says what you want to hear.

I’m just saying, if you don’t like what I’m teaching, kindly exit my classroom.

Thank you.

P.S.  For a similar read-at-your-own-risk post (which includes a few reasons I appeal to The Source), check out For Those Ready to Eat.

There Is Nothing Funny About Insecurity

In general, I don't find women comics funny. Often, they tend to be whiny, predictable, and outspokenly feminist. (By now, surely all of you know how I feel about the majority of feminists.) But I actually had high hopes for Tina Fey's book Bossypants, after waiting about three months for it to be available at the library.

I read the back cover in a bookstore and chuckled to myself. The description on the inside flap sounded promising. AND, everybody knows her Palin impersonation was spot-on-hysterical, so I decided to check it out.  So why, half-way through, was a I tempted to give up and return it?

Simply: my reading time is precious these days, and I try to keep it entertaining (as opposed to a chore). Bossypants' ability to elevate my blood pressure made it a bad fit. When the first three chapters contain nothing but the same-old cracks about homosexuals and style, I get concerned. When punchlines are few and political rants are frequent, I roll my eyes. When "abortion" is mentioned in jest, not once, but twice, I want to throw your book against a wall.

She piped about workplace inequality--which meant disproportional celebration whenever a female did something cool. (Nothing like favoring women as a means of combating sexism. Power to my people!)  She complained repeatedly about those who don't think she's funny--even dedicating Chapter 17 to personal responses to haters in internet forums. (It's possible to answer an opponent tactfully, like when she told the guy who called her a troll, "You've never even seen my guard a bridge!"  That's kind of funny, and shows she doesn't take herself seriously. But then, she abandoned the high road by referencing his small penis and joking about another commenter's mom. Classy.) Apparently she remains unaware how this discredited the chapter titled, "I don't f---ing care if you like it." Over and over, I reached the conclusion, "She's just an angry feminist!" And we all know there's nothing funny about soapbox preaching.

For some reason, though, I kept picking up the book again, and now I'm glad I did. If I hadn't, I would have lost my own challenge to consider the motivation behind somebody's actions before saying "I don't understand how someone could be that way!" Too often, we make no effort to look from another person's point-of-view before assuming they are crazy. So, I really needed to find SOMETHING positive to say about Tina Fey, and to attempt understanding her many, unexpected sore spots, even though she bugs me.  

And, little by little, I began to see the insecurity behind Miss Fey's inconsistencies. One of the best examples was when she said: “The worst question [about my personal life] is: How do you juggle it all?...They're asking, 'You're [messing] it all up, aren't you?'" 

THAT'S what she hears when people ask about her busy life? Friends, journalists, and talk show hosts want to know how a married, TV executive, with a three-year-old, manages everything at once, and she thinks this is code for secret judgement? Later, she tells the story of when she realized it "wouldn't be just me and the baby" any time soon because  “work wasn't just going to go away.” It devastated her. But she writes: “Of course, I'm not supposed to admit that there is triannual sobbing in my office because it's bad for the feminist cause. It makes it harder for women to be taken seriously in the workplace. It makes it harder for other working moms to justify their choice."  

Then she goes on to admit she argues with herself about whether to have another baby before her body says it's too late, or to continue her “dream job” at NBC. She really gets quite vulnerable about her internal struggles, and that's where I found the common ground. I understand battling with the self very well. This whole blog is dedicated to battling between choices for the Kingdom and choices for myself. It sounds like Miss Fey struggles with her "self."

The problem is, she wraps up her book with a great big “I know it's all going to be okay" without giving any specifics. My question is: what does it mean to be "okay?" And how can she be so sure in that prediction? What tells her it will be okay?

I have my security in Jesus. When I say "everything is going to be all right," I can follow it up with, "because my Father in Heaven has a plan for me, and I will spend eternity with Him in Heaven even if things on earth get crazy." I can identify with the Proverbs 31 woman, who laughs at the future because she knows her value isn't found in any earthly thing.  Not whether  men "take her seriously."  Not how others perceive management skills.  Not whether she has one or ten children. For that woman--and for me--everything WILL be all right.

Unfortunately, I couldn't laugh at Tina Fey's book because I perceived sadness and struggle between the lines. Amid overused, politicized punchlines, there is a woman looking for genuine answers. All I want to do is show her that she believes a lie--one that her worth is found in how much she is paid. what people are saying about her online, and whether she "advances the feminist cause."

Maybe those statements are enough to land me in chapter 17 of her next book. But, there just isn't anything funny about insecurity.

Victory for White People

At my Christian college, we "focused" on cross-cultural understanding. Every couple months, an African-American speaker encouraged us to sit with people from different backgrounds and remember that "Heaven will be multicolored."

Despite my tone here (and aside from one over-zealous black man who seemed to think his purpose was to "fix" we uneducated, bigoted white students), I didn't have a problem with the push to appreciate diversity. After all, Heaven WILL be multicolored. There is neither man nor woman, Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, in Christ's body. We're equals.

Equals UNTIL...

President Obama was elected. That's when a black student ran an article in the school paper about how happy she was to see this day in history. Why? Because "her people" had once been oppressed, and things finally were looking up for them. It was--I quote--an "African-American victory." If you don't understand the problem I have, imagine John McCain had won office and I--a white student--wrote about the great victory for white people...? Would it rub you the wrong way? (There is a chance you decided to read this post because those four words caught your attention.) It should offend you!

That's racism! 

I hate racism for the same reasons I hate ageism and sexism. Regardless of who does it, whether celebrating or lamenting, if you make an issue out of a person's physical body, you are drawing lines. AND, when you separate us with traits no one can control, you've created a very exclusive club. Unlike in Christianity (into which, all are welcome--truly equal.) I have no hope of being a member of this woman's "people." In her eyes, whether she was aware of it or not, John McCain and any other white person started out with a disadvantage...  So much for equality.

Unfortunately, most people who talk about desiring diversity quickly fall into the trap of elevating the minority. That's why the unnamed male student I mentioned got on my nerves. That's why feminism` generally makes me want to remove my high heels (the ones forced on me by chauvinist pigs) and assault most of the East coast senators with them. Most of the time, people repeating "equality, equality, equality" only mean "more perks for people who look like me!" And that attitude doesn't encourage compassion for "the oppressed." I don't much feel like celebrating the election of a black president based on black-ness alone.

Yes, disapproval of someone based on skin color, the year he was born, or what she keeps in her panties makes no sense.

But neither does considering these things "victorious."

The Selfishness of Big Corporations?

I am a member of the 99% of Americans who have bills to pay and mouths to feed, making less than $500,000 a year.

I'm also a member of the considerably-less-than-99% who will pay those bills and feed those mouths without stopping to blame corporate America for some ill-specified grievance.

Oh, I know it's "greed" at the root of all America's troubles. I agree, "Greed" (a close cousin of "selfishness") creates big problems, including poverty on one side and gross excess on the other. But the misunderstanding comes when we claim big business executives are the only greedy ones, all while saying, essentially, "give the wealth to ME!"  

Protestors of big business greed don't really specify HOW to "better distribute" wealth to the 99% other than taking it from the nameless rich. This is because writing their demands would more clearly highlight their foolishness:

1. We want someone else to create jobs. 
2. We want someone else to come up with a good idea.
3. We want someone else to take a risk and invest in it.
4. We want someone else to contribute to a company's growth until it turns a profit. THEN
5. We want that person to divide those profits with us.
Oh, and ...
6. We do not want this person to become "rich" in the process...

Sounds like nonsense, doesn't it?

Luckily, we already have a perfectly fair way of "distributing wealth" in this country. Those who contribute a desirable service, good, or idea get rewarded for that contribution. Those with nothing to offer must go to school or teach themselves a valuable skill OR, as many college-drop-out-billionaires have done, come up with brand new business idea and grow it yourself...

Or protest. It's America, you have the right, too. But don't expect me to honk my horn in support when I drive past the courthouse.

I am the 99% of people not classified as "very wealthy." But I am not selfish enough to demand punishment for those creative, hard-working, and daring enough to push into the 1%.