"i repent" Post From "Our Exceeding Joy" Blog

I love blogs.  I love writing them.  And I love reading them.  I've got a list of a few I like on the right side of this page.  But it is certainly not an exhaustive list.  Time is limited.  I don't have time to read 100% of each blog that piques my interest.  I don't have time to read any on a regular basis.  From time to time, if I have a few minutes, I go to one of the blogs I've bookmarked to catch up.

This morning I had such a little break in my day and wandered over to "Our Exceeding Joy."  It is a blog by a woman named Sarah in Austin, Texas.  I went to college and met my husband in Austin.  I know first hand what a great town that is.  But what initially got my attention is that Sarah is an adoptive mom like me. 

I love the description of her blog.  She describes herself first and foremost as "an avid reader and writer."  She says her blog is an outlet where she writes "about the things that stir my soul" such as "Jesus, adoption, or human-trafficking."  What a woman! 

I read a lovely post that Sarah wrote earlier this summer on June 8th.  It was entitled "i repent."  Take a read of what she wrote.  I wanted to share it because it is beautiful and inspiring.  But I also thought it was very apropos of the new focus of my own blog.

In this post, Sarah explored her former hard-heartedness and judgmental tendencies towards people unlike her.  I particularly loved the following passages:

It never crossed my mind that I could be wrong.
 

Maybe this response is because I grew up in a culture where there was this prevalent fear of being invaded by the homosexuals and the abortionists. We talked a big game, but when it actually came to believing that God could love all these sinners, we battened down the hatches and only let in like-minded people.
 

Maybe it’s because I was taught that it was more important to be right than to love.
 

Or maybe it’s just a symptom of being a fallen, broken person.

 

Sarah really hits the nail on the head.  In our modern culture, it seems like everyone is yelling at everyone who disagrees with them.  We don't listen to others who are different.  We are not open to learning.  We think we're always right, like we have a monopoly on truth.  How arrogant.  Even the disciples were continually misunderstanding Jesus's teachings though they were with him 24/7 for several years.

And as Sarah points out so eloquently, we've tragically adopted the attitude that being right is more important than loving.  What a powerful statement.  As Christ followers, we can't fault nonbelievers from embracing and living that attitude.  But those of us who purport to have read and accepted the Gospels, we should know better.  Being right is NOT more important than loving God's people, whomever they might be.

Take a read of the whole blog post, which is available at the link below.  Meditate on it and keep it in your heart as you go through the day.  Beautiful sentiments.  Yeah, Sarah!

http://www.sarahdrinka.com/?p=572

It Is Not Just the Politicians

In the last blog post, I described the exploitation of Jesus Christ by politicians to secure electoral advantage.  I wanted to be fair and note that I don't by any means believe only politicians exploit the Son of Man for earthly gain.  I'm a former corporate lawyer and professor of business law.  One of my points of consternation is when Jesus's name is exploited in the marketplace.

Sometimes it is subtle.  Maybe someone uses the ichthys (or "Christian fish") symbol in their marketing.  I did not used to think that was too bad.  But I began to ponder what they were really trying to communicate with such marketing.  I believe it is something along the lines of "I'm a Christian, so buy from me."  In other words, they are trying to gain an advantage in the marketplace through invocation of Jesus.

The advantage chiefly comes through one of two main forms.  On the one hand, it appeals to other Christians to do business within the community: "You're like me, so I'll buy from you."  But that is not appropriate.  Christianity is not a ticket to an elite country club.  The salt of the earth is not supposed to just hang out with other salt.  We're charged to go out into the world. 

Further, the appeal to stick within the community can have bigoted overtones.  Historically, it has been charged that such appeals are anti-Semitic.  As our Lord was Jewish, and as there is a long, violent history of Christian anti-Semitism, we need to be particularly wary of that.  But in the modern era, encouragement to give preferential business treatment to other Christians can be seen as bigotry against entrepreneurs of different faiths--Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.  We're to be known by our love, not our bigotry and exclusion.

The other way entrepreneurs try to gain an advantage through invocation of the ichthys or other Christian references is to use it as a means to vouch for their business scruples.  In other words, "I'm a Christian, so you can trust me."  In general, my husband is a lot more skeptical and less trusting than I am.  When someone uses symbols or words to express their Christian faith in order to gain someone's trust, alarm bells go off in his brain.  Over the years, I've come to respect this hesitancy of his. 

Some good friends of ours seem to put great emphasis on the Christian label in the way that my husband never would.  That label seems to be one of the reasons they first were drawn to be our friends because at first blush we don't actually have all that much in common.  Though they put a lot of emphasis on the Christian label, I am often puzzled by their faith.  They go to church only very sporadically and never pray before meals, their home doesn't seem to have any evidence of faith, and they often say things that seem to express deeply held secular values in conflict with the Gospel.  Yet, the Christian label means a lot to them.  So much that a while back they entered into a business deal with a man largely based on his representation that he was a Christian.  To them, this meant trustworthiness.  Invoking the label "Christian" was a like a code for "I'm the right kind of person to do business with."  Had my husband been in their shoes, such a representation in that context would have been a huge red flag.  And it turns out, for good reason.  The business deal quickly went bad.  The man had hidden the fact that he was a wanted felon.  There was evidence of illegal drug use, domestic violence and other awful things.  Eventually the man skipped town to evade the police, leaving our friends with a horrible mess to clean up.

Beyond such subtle use of symbols, these days other businesses may use their faith in perhaps more obvious ways.

Chick-fil-A is a high profile example.  The private corporation's CEO, S. Truett Cathy, is a Southern Baptist and that faith has been important in the corporate culture.  Their official statement of corporate purpose includes the goal: "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us.  To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."  In line with his faith, Mr. Cathy has made sure that the company's restaurants are closed on Sundays, which is unusual in the American market place.  To be clear, I personally don't believe the decision was made in order to exploit Jesus to gain an advantage in the marketplace.  However, I do believe that an advantage is nonetheless achieved in this way.  I myself know a lot of folks who favor the restaurant for this business decision, as well as other indicia of being a "Christian business."

Another high profile example is Hobby Lobby, whose website describes the business with a lot of religious references: http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/our_company.cfm.  Of four commitments listed, the first is "[h]onoring the Lord in all we do by operating in a manner consistent with biblical principles."  The website also indicates it is closed on Sundays.  However, the business has gain attention recently because it has sued over regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "Obamacare").  Specifically, the company objects to required coverage of emergency contraceptives (a.k.a. the "morning after-pill"). 

Personally, I respect very much those who value the sanctity of life, and I deeply admire those who would potentially sacrifice financially to be true to their deepest values.  However, the pragmatic attorney side of me is skeptical about this particular lawsuit. 

The reality is that the "morning after pill" is used in just a small number of cases.  Unlike birth control pills or condoms, most women will never use the "morning after pill" because it only works in limited contexts.  It can be taken up to five days after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy from happening.  Specifically, the pill prevents ovaries from releasing an egg.  If it does not leave the ovary, an egg cannot be fertilized by sperm.  The "morning after pill" is thus appropriately labeled "contraception," and not "abortion." Unlike the former, the latter removes a fertilized egg from a woman's body.  Although there is disagreement over when human life begins, the earliest definition is fertilization of an egg by a sperm.  No one asserts that an unfertilized egg or a solo sperm is equivalent to a human being.

Further, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, most Christians would not assert that there is a moral imperative to allow an egg to be released from an ovary such that fertilization might occur.  As a former Catholic, I can vouch that even most practicing Catholics disagree with this official teaching.  Indeed, when my husband and I went through the church's marriage preparation classes, the couple teaching the course professed bewilderment over that teaching and indicated they had not followed it in planning their own family.  This was quite telling as the wife taught in the church's parochial school, the couple were active and well-respected in the church, and they were close friends with the pastor.  These were not casual mass attenders, but the lay backbone of the church.

It is important to note that because of its limited utility, the "morning after pill" is typically intended to be used when a woman's primary contraceptive fails (e.g., a condom breaks) or in the case of rape.  Even many people who are opposed to abortion would allow an exception in the case of rape. 

Due to these circumstances, I myself wonder about the sincerity of the Hobby Lobby lawsuit over the Affordable Care Act.  Perhaps I am wrong, but my suspicion is that the company is raising the issue of religious freedom as a ruse to avoid having to provide costly health insurance to its employees.  Indeed, I've known a number of fans of the store who've been sympathetic to the corporation's position because of the invocation of religious freedom.  These same folks would likely not be as sympathetic if the issue were framed in a different way, e.g., eating into corporate profits to provide health care to workers.

Reader Responses to Dr. Slaughter’s Article

The link below has a variety of reader responses to Dr. Slaughter’s article:

http://feministing.com/2012/06/27/anne-marie-slaughter-websplosion-response-roundup-on-having-it-all-and-tweet-chat/

Stephanie Coontz’s wording struck me: “the insanely rigid workplace culture that produces higher levels of career-family conflict among Americans.”  That phrasing really captures the reality Dr. Slaughter is critiquing, as well as my own experiences and observations.

Someone named “Flavia” described “[m]ainstream feminism” as being “a tool to enforce the current system of inequalities.”  She rejected “reactive feminism” that is “chasing this faux equality that puts us on the race to be better managers of exclusion.”  That is very challenging conceptually.  In essence, she seems to be asserting that mainstream feminism is simply about getting women into the same roles men have occupied in a hierarchical workplace.  I can appreciate that characterization and her hostility towards it.

I really applaud Katrina vanden Heuvel’s comment.  She reminds us of the critically narrow focus of Dr. Slaughter’s article, which assumes a women who is highly educated and pursuing an elite career.  The vast majority of working moms have an even more difficult reality.  For them, it is not just a concern that they won’t reach the most elite levels of their profession.  For most moms, Ms. vanden Heuvel notes the huge toll economic insecurity and the lack of support takes on children.  When women must “cobble together” multiple poorly compensated jobs, she notes that “[c]hild care gets done by grandmothers, neighbors or simply the TV.”  That is such an important point.  And not everyone has grandmothers or neighbors to help, so women are left to either forego needed income or leave children by themselves.  What a travesty. 

But in our culture, such points often seem to fall on cold hearts.  The common refrain is that the moms in such situations shouldn’t have made the decision to have children.  Particularly when you read reader comments to articles on such topics, you often see crude comments like “use birth control.”  That command is quite ironic in light of the recent debate about providing birth control as part of the medical insurance we pay for. 

For other reasons, it is also highly telling when you see such comments.  It is a basic fact of biology that it does take a male as well as a female to reproduce.  Apparently some species can reproduce asexually, but not humans.  It still takes two to tango.  But when you see such crude comments justifying the callus “you’re on your own” attitude towards single moms, I never hear anyone blaming the fathers who are equally responsible for bringing the child into this world.  Disproportionately, in single parent households, it is the father who is absent and the bulk of the child-rearing responsibilities fall to the mother alone. 

There is another hypocrisy in the common refrain the moms shouldn’t have made the decision to have children they couldn’t care for.  In our culture, abortion is something that most Americans do not celebrate and condemn to at least some degree.  Many consider themselves “pro-life” meaning they believe that medical abortions should not be legal.  Even those who embrace the “pro-choice” stance don’t celebrate it when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy.  I’ve never heard anyone advocate that women should have more abortions.  That would be nuts.  Even if one has no concern for the fetus.  Medical abortions are not good for one’s physical health.  And there can be long-lasting emotional and spiritual scares on the woman who has an abortion.  At most in our culture, medical abortions are tolerated as a necessary evil or the least awful option in certain situations.  Indeed, Bill Clinton famously said he wanted medical abortions to be “safe, legal and rare.”

Because of this widespread attitude that medical abortion is not a positive choice, one would think that we as a society might celebrate women who carry their pregnancies to term.  You would think that we might applaud the women who do not choose to have a medical abortion.  Due to our widespread attitude of economic individualism, however, this is not the case.  Women are berated for having children they cannot support.  What a sick attitude. 

Economic Darwinism and conservative social values are a tragic, frightening mix.

 

Matthew 10:29-31

Aren’t two sparrows sold for a small coin? But not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father knowing about it already. Even the hairs of your head are all counted. Don’t be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows.

Bill Maher’s Use of the “C” Word and the “T” Word

In my last post, I mentioned that some conservatives have defended Rush Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke by asserting that certain liberals are just as misogynistic.  The main focus of such assertions has been comedian, Bill Maher.  The link below takes you to one of the many articles covering this controversy.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-15/news/31198749_1_bill-maher-liberal-comedian-rush-limbaugh

Mr. Maher has rejected comparisons between his use of the “c” word and the “t” word to refer to Sarah Palin in comedic routines and Mr. Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke.  To differentiate his own language from Mr. Limbaugh’s disgusting rant on Sandra Fluke, Mr. Maher has explained that Mr. Limbaugh had gone “after a civilian” while Mr. Maher had used filth to describe a “public figure.”  (OK, to be honest, the term “filth” was my characterization, not Mr. Maher’s.) 

Mr. Maher elaborated:

“I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who’s called people ‘terrorist’ and ‘unAmerican’... The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.”

Interesting.  I’m not exactly sure that that is what James Madison had in mind when he drafted the Bill of Rights.  But I suppose Mr. Maher has a point.  And although his choice of words does trigger my gag reflex, I am a fervent defender of the First Amendment and would vigorously defend Mr. Maher’s right to speak his mind. 

 To defend his use of these terms in question, Mr. Maher also countered that audiences at his comedic performances loved the use of those terms to describe Governor Palin:

“The bit I did about Palin using the word c--- was one of the biggest laughs in my act, I did it all over the country, not one person ever registered disapproval, and believe me, audiences are not afraid to let you know. Because it was a routine where that word came in at just the right moment. Context is very important.”

The fact that audiences at his comedy shows did not object to the use of these terms doesn't say much. Mr. Maher is a self-confessed "potty mouth," so people paying the big bucks to attend his live show expect (and arguably demand) such filthy language.

Finally, Mr. Maher also seemed to think part of the problem with Mr. Limbaugh’s word choice was that the radio host was “speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves.”  Mr. Maher seems to be suggesting that the GOP is hostile to women, but the Democrats are somehow their savior.  That is a rather questionable claim of superiority.  I would suggest that both parties are dominated by white men who are either rich or middle class, and neither party has done a particularly good job of representing people of color, women or the poor.  There are a lot of issues impacting women.  Being against the re-criminalization of abortion does not somehow make one a champion of “women’s rights.”  If Mr. Maher thinks it does, then he certainly has a lot to learn about women.

All in all, I don’t think Mr. Maher quite understands the controversy over Mr. Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke, and the comparison to Mr. Maher’s own attacks on Governor Palin.  It frankly has nothing whatsoever to do with context.

The main point, in my opinion, is that “slut” and “prostitute” are words that convey certain sexual connotations.  As I explained in a prior post, the term “slut” is an epithet that only makes sense when used against a woman.  It is a joke or a compliment when used to describe a man.  The term “prostitute” is generally equated with women only.  Both terms denote individuals who have had multiple sexual partners, for which there is a strong sexist double standard in our society.  These terms when used against women can painfully bring shame and humiliation.  By contrast, accusing a man of having multiple sexual partners is typically viewed in our society as praise for his virility. 

It is important to note that the specific terms that Mr. Maher used to reference Governor Palin are actually much worse than the terms Mr. Limbaugh used to describe Ms. Fluke.  So much worse that I won’t even write Mr. Maher’s words out in this blog.  Not even once.  They are that disgusting.

Before I go on, let me be clear that I am no prude.  Christians are often stereotyped as nerdy, sheltered squares, so I do feel the need to state this fact at the outset.  Let me elaborate on my credentials as a non-sheltered person. I have been happily married for 15 years. I’ve had a lot of friends from different backgrounds and with different value systems.  I have been to comedy clubs, I’ve seen plenty of Hollywood films, and I’ve even listened to hip hop music.  (Oh, my!)  I’ve taught grade schools in tough neighborhoods fraught with gang violence.  I have heard all kinds of language.  Curse words have indeed come out of my mouth.  I am also a Criminal Law professor; periodically I must lead sexually graphic class discussions when I teach the law of rape.  I do not blush or even get nervous when I have to lead these discussions with 70+ law students.  The bottom line of all this is that I have not lived in an ivory tower isolated from the world.  I don’t flinch when people use filthy or sexually explicit language.

But the two words in question that Mr. Maher used are particularly vile.  They are both epithets that only make sense when used to describe a woman.  Insightfully, both the “c” word and the “t” word technically refer to female genitalia.  I think that is interesting and no fluke.  (No pun intended.)

If you think about it objectively, why on earth would it be an insult to call someone female genitalia?  I mean, it is weird.  I grant you that.  But then again, it would be pretty weird to insult folks by calling them other body parts.  “You elbow!”  “He is such an ankle!”

But in our American profanity, we have at least two epithets where we put women down by calling them female genitalia.  As a Christian, I understand that God designed our bodies; as his creations, they are beautiful.  That includes the genitals. 

Nonetheless, in our culture, the connotations associated with the “c” word and the “t” word are so incredibly foul.  I mean, the “b” word absolutely pales by comparison.  Not even close.  It is like the difference between “stupid head” v. “m----- f-----.”

The “c” word and the “t” word are so incredibly taboo and heinous, I was actually in my 20s before I ever heard them.  They just don’t get used that often in pop culture or in the circles I’ve frequented.

To me, the fact that words for female genitalia have come to have such a deeply offensive connotation is suggestive that those who coined the “c” and the “t” words find women’s sexuality awful and shameful.  I’m at a loss to understand that attitude fully, but it clearly is rooted on some level in misogyny. 

I get that Mr. Maher doesn’t like Governor Palin.  You know what?  She is not my favorite person either.  Frankly, her politics and her rhetoric appall me on many levels.  But calling her the “c” word or the “t” word is blatantly sexist.  And I deeply resent Mr. Maher’s use of those terms to describe any female.  I don’t care if the female in question is a “public figure” or not.

These two terms are misogynistic.  They allude to shameful connotations associated with female genitals.  They are epithets reserved exclusively for women.  I’m doubtful that Mr. Maher has used the terms for Senator McCain, Governor Romney or any other male politician.  That is not how the terms in question are used.

Thus, using the “c” word and the “t” word to deride Governor Palin has the effect of dismissing her as a politician.  The insinuation is that she is not to be taken seriously.  It is quite condescending.  Again, male politicians don’t get dismissed like that.

If Mr. Maher has a problem with Sarah Palin—or any other female politician—I would hope that in the future he would explain his concerns without the use of misogynistic epithets.  If he has to use profanity, I would prefer he at least stuck to gender neutral epithets!  

Genesis 5:1-2 (Common English Bible)

On the day God created humanity, he made them to resemble God and created them male and female. He blessed them and called them humanity on the day they were created.

The Reason for the Debate on Oral Contraceptives

Some politicians have tried to win points with religious conservatives by trying to frame this issue of employer mandated coverage of oral contraceptives as an Obama administration war against people of faith.   This is an incredible distortion of reality.  Shame on them.  I’m not sure why politicians making such assertions haven’t experienced tremendous, rapid growth of their olfactory organs.

Let’s call a spade a spade.  I’ve listened to the debate carefully, and I have not yet identified any religious group other than the Roman Catholic Church that objects to the provision of oral contraceptives as part of an employer provided health plan.  Despite following the debate carefully, I have never heard of any other Christian denomination or any other non-Christian religion opposed to the secular law in question.  If there is another faith group who is also opposed, please let me know.

Perhaps it is politically incorrect, but the media doesn’t seem to be noting the reality of the debate’s genesis.  That failure subtly implies that many people of faith—many Christians, for example—also are opposed to birth control.  That couldn’t be farther from the truth.  The current debate centers around an issue of Catholic teaching that is now having secular policy implications. 

And let’s be clear about who in the Catholic Church is opposing this employer mandate.  Strangely, that is not getting much media attention either.  It is the hierarchy, not the members of the Church, who are opposing the employer mandate in question.  This is an extremely significant point, but members of other Christian denominations and other religions may not immediately recognize why. 

Unlike many religious institutions, the Roman Catholic Church is monarchical and undemocratic in terms of its decision-making structure.  This is not a criticism, it is a fact.  What I mean in using these adjectives is that Catholics in the pews don’t vote to determine the bishop of their diocese, or the members of the College of Cardinals or other Church groups that set policy.  Those decisions are made by the Pope in Vatican City.  But he also is not elected by the Catholics in the pews. 

As women are banned from the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church, women’s voices are simply not present when policy is decided by Church leaders.  Moreover, women’s voices are not even indirectly heard because the decision-makers are men who are barred from marriage.  Thus, the decision-makers do not even have the benefit of insight from a wife (or daughter).

These facts are important to recognize because when the Church hierarchy speaks out against the employer mandate in question, it is very unlikely that they are speaking for many American Catholic lay people.  There are several reasons to have such doubt.

First, despite some cruel accusations to the contrary, the Catholic Church is not a cult.  As I have mentioned previously, I was a Catholic most of my Christian walk.  My fellow parishioners and I did not just blindly follow what the priests and other ordained leaders told us.  We had minds of our own and we used them.

Second, it has been well-documented that the overwhelming majority of American Catholics reject the Church’s teaching on birth control.  For example, the link below takes you to a report indicating that 98% of sexually active American Catholic women have used contraceptives that the Church hierarchy has deemed to be incompatible with Church teaching.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/14/us-most-catholic-women-us-use-birth-cont-idUSTRE73D4SZ20110414

Such data certainly is consistent with my own experience as a devout Catholic.  I have had countless Catholic friends who just shake their heads in disbelief at that teaching and ignore it without a second thought.  Significantly, these have been friends who agree with and follow the Church’s teachings on other issues.  For example, these friends tend to be very strongly against induced abortions.  (Perhaps because they are so strongly opposed to abortion, they take the prevention of pregnancy very seriously.)

I was particularly struck by this disconnect between the Church hierarchy and its parishioners many years ago when my husband and I were in pre-marriage classes at our home parish to prepare for a sacramental wedding.  The class met for several weeks to discuss various topics of great importance to a strong marriage (e.g., finances, child rearing, division of household chores).  During the last class of the series, the topic for our discussion was the role of sex in marriage.  That topic was part of the official curriculum for the course.

The course my then-fiancé and I took was taught by a long-married couple.  They were pillars of the parish and active in a variety of ministries.  They were close to the church’s pastor.  The wife was even a teacher at the parish school.

Though this couple had been leaders in the parish’s pre-marriage education program for a long time and had prepared countless couples for sacramental marriage, I was stunned when they began the last class by admitting they had never understood the Church’s teaching on contraception.  Indeed, they even strongly insinuated they had used artificial family planning to space their children’s births. 

The couple teaching the class asked if anyone else could explain the Church’s teaching on contraception.  In a group of over thirty people, I was the only one who raised her hand.  I had actually studied the Church’s teaching and tried to explain it neutrally to the group.  It was almost comical because people just stared blankly at the explanation.  No one expressed any reaction.  Though we had openly discussed a number of personal subjects with the group, and many of us had shared very personal struggles, no one wanted to try to discuss the Church’s teaching on contraceptives.  After hearing the Church’s rationale for prohibiting artificial family planning, I got the strong sense everyone was just thinking: “That’s nuts.”  Everyone was polite and quiet until someone changed the subject to a less awkward topic.

Matthew 5:5

Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.

Acts 10:38

You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.