This Fisk Wasn't for Me but I'm taking it anyway

One Phyllis Strupp, of whom I have never before heard, thinks that Father, and by that I presume she means God, doesn't always know best. Father, by whom we assume she means God (I'm kidding, I know she doesn't mean God, I'm  just messing with her), needs the Holy Spirit, whom it's clear she assumes is "female" to get it right.

Jesus was loud and clear on this point: God has both masculine, left-brained qualities in God the father as well as feminine, right-brained qualities in God the Holy Spirit.

And then there's this

Is the idolatry of male power in a patriarchal society preventing us from seeing the Trinity more clearly -- and receiving the wisdom and aid of the Holy Spirit? Do we grieve the Holy Spirit, as Paul warned us not to do in Ephesians 4:30-31:

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.

Is that right? Men are filled with all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice? Whereas "the ladies" are not?

Father doesn't always know best. Sometimes he does, and sometimes he doesn't. He's only human, after all. Sometimes mother knows best. No one person is the only source of grace in a family, congregation, diocese, business, or society -- and no one person should shoulder all the blame for failures. Let's give father a break and put our heads (left brains and right brains) together and find new ways to welcome the Holy Spirit and satisfy the spiritual hunger of our times!

To which I reply
Phyllis, Know Your Limits!

A Little Friday Opinion Mongering

Between reading the comments on the Stand Firm Homeschool thread (the lectures by RC Sproul, by the way, are really excellent), the very funny idea that all the men in the Anglican Communion should remain silent for a year, and watching all the amazing clips of people being shut out of Town Hall Meetings (and this one of the AARP people leaving in the middle of the meeting), I've been considering to myself quietly all week the immense cultural divide between conservative and liberal. It doesn't seem, at this point, to be just groups of people leaning slightly further to the right or to the left. There is a profound and every day more bitter divide.

Take this comment on the homeschool thread. The commenter asks, "One question I would like to kick around which has yet to come up—what about the career aspirations of moms who homeschool? Are there any who have managed to maintain their own careers which homeschooling? "

My initial reaction, which I didn't post because I couldn't log in by the grace of God, was, 'What! Being home with your children isn't enough?!!!' and then, 'I have an extra career and ask anyone, I'm always trying to shove my work off on other people because I'd rather be home with my kids' and then, 'well, here I am, I haven't had to choose so I shouldn't be judgmental'. But as I banged my way around my kitchen, reacting and muttering to myself, I discovered that I do not share the fundamental assumption that women are owed an extra career, or that being in anyway 'fulfilled' is a reason to do the job at hand. In fact, my baseline most important priority is to do the will of God. And the will of God, seen most plainly in scripture and then in a lot of other places, almost always involves sacrificing oneself for the sake of others, first Jesus, because he died for me, then for my husband, because he's so wonderful, then for my children because God gave them to me, then for the church because apparently that's my job (hehehe). But there is a real danger to this world view of mine. It puts me on a profound collision course with So Many People.

For example, the Episcopal Church. Every lifestyle is a right. The greatest sin is not living up to be the person you and "God" think you should be rather than, say, offending an all Holy God through blatant and unsorrowful disobedience. This is why dear Ms. Kaeton and I will probably never be good friends, though doubtless we pray for each other occasionally. I don't think she has a right to her way of life. I don't think she should be the rector of a church. I don't think God is waiting out there to affirm her for who she is, any more than he's sitting around waiting to affirm me for who I am. I think he's waiting for both of us to confess our sins and be really sorry and then he will forgive us, and let us do his work for his glory. And if that work involves a fundamental denial of the self, well, that ought to be no surprise to anyone. He laid the model down himself.

Second, the Obama administration on two points. Callous as it seems, I don't think health-care is a right to be dispensed by the government. It ought to be a matter of compassion and mercy dispensed by the church and other charitable organizations (read Non Profit) for those who can't afford it (I realize, as I write this, that this is practically a utopia and is never going to happen) and then paid for by those who can. Anyway, I'm not here to argue about health-care. The other point is that of education. I think its my responsibility to educate my children, not the state's and I'd like as little interference as possible.

And ultimately, I'm on a collision course with all feminists everywhere. Its no surprise to me that the top tier of the Episcopal Church is occupied by a gaggle of women, with a bunch of cowering male bishops underneath, unwilling to stand up and say anything, like 'Stop It'. So far from having all the men be quiet for a whole year, I vote that all the women take a vow of silence and then see what happens. Of course, then I'd probably have to shut down this blog, but my stuff's not that interesting anyway.

Sorting

I sat down five or six times to write yesterday and Every time I got through half a sentence the phone rang. Clearly, whatever I was thinking of to say was not preordained by God.

Today I am continuing the immense and satisfying work of sorting for the HUGE YARD SALE we're having August 15. Mark your calendars and come buy all my stuff. I got through the kitchen yesterday and now have place to put all the stuff I emptied out from a cabinet I had to give away. Today I'm facing the girls' room. They have a beautiful newly hung rod in their closet so I can finally put away all of their clothes.

On top of all this, I'm making a desperate attempt to potty train Romulus. We had a pretty good day yesterday. If I could time things just right with Gladys I think I could slip her in too, but so far having one naked child wandering the house is stressful enough.

So, in light of the fact that I have nothing interesting to write about myself, I thought I'd point you to this excellent post by Jessica, and this one by Jen, and this one by And Sometimes Tea. And, of course, you could check out this and this at Stand Firm. Hehehehehe. I always thought Paul left out a couple of words in his letter to Timothy. He meant to say, 'I don't permit that woman to speak in church, and that one over there, and that one, and maybe you and you.' Clearly Ms. Sherrod would have been on his list.

A Little Fuel for a Fire

I really enjoyed this post this morning.

It brought to my attention how well Matt and I work together, and how much he depends on me for, well, lots. I'm not very good at the matching socks and ironed shirts part, but I am able to pick up the slack on pastoral care, when he needs it, or preaching, or liturgy-all, as you know, related to his job. And it IS true that an orderly home is easier for him for all of us. I know its totally counter cultural, but we can't all put ourselves first all the time, and so I highly recommend, for any woman considering it, putting your husband before yourself (after God, of course).

That's all, I'm really supposed to be working on my quarterly report.

what does the Lord require of thee

I'm supposed to be working up sign up sheets for tomorrow's Mission and Ministry Fair. So, naturally, I thought a little blogging would be in order.

Well, I don't actually have anything interesting to write about, but I did find This very interesting and am curious about what you all think.

So Many Things

I'm trying to decide how late to stay up. I REALLY want to see the Palin Speech. But its also been an extremely long day. Hmmmmmmm.

This post will be in Two Parts. Part One: the Palin Pick. Part Two: the First Day of School. And it will be scattered and badly written.


Part One: The Palin Pick
When John McCain announced his choice of Sarah Palin to be his running mate, I astonished my children by dancing ridiculously around the kitchen. I am positively delighted. I Might just vote now. In the days following I have tried to think carefully about why this choice is so interesting and delightful. These are in no particular order.
A. She can wear a skirt and does (see my long lost post, KJS in pants).
B. She didn't set out to be a politician. She joined the PTA, probably got mad about something, ran for local office, was successful and moved on up. She hasn't been sitting in the Senate for the last 30 years arguing with Bush's judicial nominees and otherwise being unhelpful (that would be Biden, if you're not getting who I'm talking about).
C. And this is really the most important, She is Pro Life. And not just politically, she's put her money where her mouth is.
D. I've been trying to understand the media frenzy over the last few days and why it Didn't bother me that she, as the mother of five children, is seeking high office. It is, as Matt pointed out, so interesting that liberals who generally think All women should go to work and leave their children in the hands of strangers for education and care (think Hillary Clinton), suddenly do not think that This woman should do This job, because she has children some of whom have issues. Presumably they believe she should stay home. And honestly, this is probably the most compelling part of the whole Pick, for me. This is where I am constantly struggling in my own professional/family life. I'm an ordained minister of the gospel. I do A Lot of work in the church, of every kind-pastoral care, preching, admin, healing prayer, bible study, christian ed, vestry, the list could go on and on-and I haven't really stopped doing any of that. But my kids are a Priority. They need to be educated, they need to be fed, they need to be read to every day, they need to be taught to clean the house (heh), and I'm not going to let someone else do it for me (although I get plenty of help). In this way I really do have the feminist legacy to thank. The fact that I can do both is because so many before me have. But that very legacy is now angry with me, and Sarah Palin, and every other woman who works in the world but refuses to Buy into that world-the so called 'culture of death', universal preschool, universal health care (God preserve us from such a wretched idea), secular relativism, government schools, I could go on and on. I'm not saying very well what I mean. I just think that Conservative Women are launching A New Age-the Age of Skirts, Babies and Awesome Coolness. Maybe I'll be able to write more coherently about this tomorrow.


Part Two: The First Day of School
I popped awake at 5:30 this morning and was So Prepared I was ready to go a whole half an hour early (I know this will never happen again). I was as nervous as the day I preached my Chapel Sermon in Seminary. We were so early we had time to stop for coffee (well, I did, the children did Not drink coffee, they didn't need it). And we didn't get lost, even though I'd planned for that eventuality. We arrived wildly early and had to dance in the parking lot until other people arrived. We found a series of big glorious school rooms with enormous windows and more toys than you could hope for.

For those of you who aren't caught up, we've joined the local Classical Conversations Group and I am tutoring the Fours and Fives or Abecedarians as they say in CC. A is in my class along with five other 4 and 5 year old little boys. E is in the First/Second grade class with a Fabulous tutor. E was deeply in love at the end of the morning and cried half the way home.

Spending the morning with six little boys proved to be as challenging as I imagined it would be. My expectations were completely met. But, I had a thoroughly good time. They are interesting little guys, and I'm going to enjoy every Wednesday with them. I'm also going to crash into the ground every Wednesday afternoon, Guaranteed, after waving my arms, marching around the room, jumping up and down, clapping, singing, and "teaching" drawing.

Tomorrow we start our time at home-Reading/Phonics, Math, Piano, a little French, Bible, CC Review and Little House on the Prairie. I'm going to use Math U See because Saxon (just even looking at the cover) makes me want to weep and moan. I think we're going to have a jolly good time.

This afternoon, while I slept blissfully on the couch (first time I've been able to sleep in weeks, that's how nervous I've been), E went next door and had her second loose tooth dislodged. So now I have to collect some change and go pry the tooth out of her little hand.

One Thing and Another

I have been on the verge of posting several times the last few days but have been constantly side tracked by 1. The Don Armstrong/Grace Church/Bishop O’Neil Mess, 2. The British soldiers taken hostage by Iran, and 3. My children’s culinary intransigence. So, I’m going to try and write about all three and see how it goes. Maybe in the reverse order.

3. We finally decided to cope with the fact that our children are becoming picky eaters. And because heaviness tends to run in my side of the family and we’re trying to be healthy and weight conscious parents we’ve opted out of the ‘finish everything on your plate every time come hell or high water’, my grandmother’s approach to food. Instead we’ve decided to stake our claim on ‘if you take it yourself you have to eat all of it come hell or high water’, in the hopes that our kiddos will learn to eat only until they are full and then stop eating, and be able to judge portion size for themselves. As a result E spent two hours in front of her dinner last night, which she served herself. It was getting late and I was exhausted, so we gave her the choice of finishing right then or eating it for breakfast. It is now 10:30am, next morning and she is sitting in front of it picking at it and crying. I hate this fight. I still bear a certain level of grudge towards my dear beloved parents (who really can do no wrong) for making me eat Ratatouille, that slimy eggplant infested stew with a gentle hit of bitterness. E is not facing anything so upsetting. She is sitting in front of delicious lightly sautéed chicken and couscous studded with peas. In general I try not to go head-on into something I know is going to lead to a stand off. But we’ve been catering too much to their every whim and desire and so it had to be done. Hope she eats it before the day is over and we can move on to the next trauma.

2. I’ve decided to pray for these hostages instead of worrying about them, a decision I haven’t been totally able to uphold. But besides the obvious horror of their being taken in the first place and the many bad ways this could end, this crisis upsets me for two other reasons. First, I’m going to be politically incorrect and primitive and say that I just cannot support women in combat military situations. And even more, can’t support women with children in the military at all. A nation and culture that sends its mothers to war in the name of equal opportunity deserves that it gets. Ours and every other one. I know simplifying a complex issue in this way probably isn’t helpful and that the military affords women and men many wonderful opportunities AND I admire the women who sign up. They are brave and they should be honored. But we shouldn’t ask them to go into situations like these. There should be other places for women to serve that won’t put them in places like Iran, especially if they have children. And Second, I’m discouraged by Britain’s luke warm response to this crisis. Others have already spoken about it more effectively. But when a nation decides not to fight back, I don’t see how long that nation/civilization will last. I will cease speaking about that of which I know not.

1. I don’t really have anything to add to the various debates going on about this matter. For those of you who are not Anglican, Don Armstrong is rector of a major church in Colorado. The bishop is accusing him of various things including tax fraud and mismanagement of funds. Armstrong claims he is innocent. The matter is further complicated by the fact that Armstrong is head of the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI), a think tank that has had enormous sway in communion matters, including the present crisis. The ACI seems to be distancing themselves from Armstrong and his troubles. In the last few days Grace Church and Armstrong have left The Episcopal Church and gone under the overseas protection of CANA (church of Nigeria). It’s a complete mess. It is unclear if Armstrong is guilty or innocent. It is clear that Bishop O’Neil has handled everything very badly. I await further news.

However, the icing on the cake (this morning, for me) is that the organist of Grace Church is making the bold decision to stay in the Episcopal Church and is try to take chunks of the choir with him. This is fabulous. I can number on one finger the number of good clergy/organist relationships I’ve witnessed in the church (that would be our present one at Good Shepherd). We even role played in seminary how, as clergy we should talk to the church organist. It is the one major power center in the church that consistently vies with the rector. As an outside ignorant observer, it is a big red flag to me that the organist is there, having sway, taking people with him. That Armstrong wouldn’t have consolidated power and got rid of people who were happy to undercut him seems unwise. I’m sorry to say it, but there are power issues always at play in the church and the rector has to be aware of who has power and what they’re trying to do with it. It just seems like there are so many problems in this church. I guess it should be no surprise to find sin, even in good orthodox churches. After all, we’re all fallen, we’re all mucking in this together, we’re not always going to do the righteous and holy thing, even if we have our theology all lined up in the right order. My prayers are with Fr. Armstrong and his church and even Bishop O’Neil. I hope the truth comes to light swiftly and graciously and good wise decisions can be made to heal this broken mess.

I try always to think of what my husband would do, and do that

As usual my brain is jelly having spent all day chained to the kitchen and school table. However, I thought I might be able to engage in a spot of film criticism. Matt and I recently subscribed to Netflix in a desperate attempt to have at least one night a week of no church. So this week we watched Mrs. Brown with Judi Dench playing a bereaved (at the time of the movie it’s been 3 years since Prince Albert died) and reclusive Queen Victoria. Judi Dench, as always, is fabulous, even in horrible black Victorian fashion, the rest of the cast is fine, and the movie over all basically good.

But most particularly interesting, to me, was how unmoored Queen Victoria (or Judi Dench’s Queen Victoria) was without Prince Albert. Several times in the course of the film she said, ‘I tried always to be guided by my husband’ or ‘I try to think of what my husband would do, even though he is not here, and do that’. She was unable to cope, or rather refused to cope, with every day life. In other words, she was unable to govern herself. In an effort to bring her out of her grief, her staff brings one Mr. Brown on the scene to at least get her out of doors. Mr. Brown is Scottish and aggressive and essentially forces the Queen back into public life.

This rather surprised me. If anyone should have a hold of themselves, I would have thought it would be Queen Victoria (I shouldn’t really be writing, I haven’t read a thing about her, although now I’m going to). And probably in the recesses of my mind, I thought of her as the quintessential ‘feminist’, in the old sense of the word, as in, strong independent woman—after all, she got to be queen and her husband was never allowed to be king. And even more I would have expected a modern interpretation of her life to have skipped out lines like ‘I try always to think of what my husband would do, and do that’.

Modern feminism is really the opposite—find out what your husband wants to do and then do the opposite, or belittle him, or rule over him, or just generally be in charge of everything. The very idea of being guided by another person, particularly a man, is contrary to the modern woman, at least in her conscious mind. But I would wager, even a small amount of money, that if the man she rules would wake up one day and just not take it any more, she might, very much like Queen Victoria, make the best of it, and actually be a lot more relaxed and happy about life as a result. Knowing, of course, as I write this, that I’m liable to be disagreed with in the strongest of terms.

at school

I've arrived in St. Louis for my four day intensive time (the course is Bible Interpretation). Baby is teething so its going to be a super fun week I can tell. I'm cramming all the reading down my throat, metaphorically speaking, and complaining with my classmates about the impossibility of having to 'draw my world view'. However, the silver lining of the day was reading Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World. Of course, as a protestant, I'm not particularly concerned with what the Vatican has to say about so many things, but I found this letter to contain some very nice lines.

Formed by God and placed in the garden which he was to cultivate, the man, who is still referred to with the generic expression Adam, experienced a loneliness which the presence of the animals is not able to overcome. He needs a helpmate who will be his partner. The term here does not refer to an inferior, but to a vital helper. This is so that Adam's life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship with another being on his own level. Only the woman, created from the same 'flesh' and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man.

The document doesn't quite arrive at the love/respect level, but it goes a good distance away from feminism. I'm just irritated overall by the 'church's', and everyone else's for that matter, need to affirm the role/position/wisdom/etc. of women. Its tiresome. Anyway, the great fight begins in the morning, I will update as it rages.

So, I'm having, for school, to read a book called Feminism and Beyond: A Theological Reflection for the Next Aeon, by one Loretta Dornisch. I believe she is a Dominican Sister for which she is to be congradulated and admired. However, this book is a rediculous waste of my time. Let me just lift a few precious lines from this inspiring work. "Some Protestants are in the liberal tradition. They believe Christianity must accomodate itself to a scientific world view and to insights from the modern sciences. Christianty must be able to correlate with experience and reason"(82). No really? So liberal protestants believe in science (as opposed to conservative protestants who only believe in God) which helped them "gradually develope readiness for the approval of women's ordination" (83). Because that's the highest good. The Church is supposed to 'develope readiness' for important liberal values--women's ordination, same sex blessings, abortion, the stupification of the next generation. Sister Dornisch probably doesn't know any conservative protestants personally.