will you submit to me? circle yes or no.

i am suffering from an identity crisis.

it's been just over one year since i graduated from college. it took some time for me to feel comfortable as a non-student. it took some time for me to know how to talk about my life without school. it helped that graduation hadn't been so long ago. i could still say 'i just graduated in may.' i can't say that anymore - we're already in another may.

fortunately, i've almost completely coped with being a non-student. now i have to find an identity as a regular person, an adult with no student role on which to blame things. my new roles have to be taken more seriously. i'm a woman. what does that mean? i'm a follower of Christ. what does that mean? i'm a part of a body of people who follow Christ. what does that mean? i am a close friend and family member. what does that mean?

i think that when i was younger, all of these roles just were. i didn't do anything to get them - they happened to me, and so i reacted. now, i feel a responsibility for figuring out what each of these things mean, and how i can best fill them all at once.

the role that i have been struggling with the most lately has been my role as a woman, more particularly, my role as a now single, maybe one day married, Christ-following woman.

i know that i write about gender stuff a lot (maybe not, but it seems like it), but it's because, like i said, in this season of my life, i'm really working to figure out who i am and what that means. being a woman is a giant part of that because there has been SO much information thrown at me throughout my life about what a christian woman should look like. so much information that i have often felt like i am drowning in it, like it is an upset sea and i am an infant.

much of this information has been untrue and not at all in the heart of God (which is what i am trying to pursue). in fact, i have a book on my shelf at home right now entitled '10 Lies the Church Tells Women.' to be honest, i haven't read that book, but i like that it's there - it reminds me that it's okay to be discriminatory when it comes to this angry sea of information.

i have been so blessed and encouraged by christianity over the last year - continually learning more about the love and compassion that, if sought in earnest, Christ brings. i am always meeting people in this area - progressive, liberal people who have little interest in the heart of God, but who i feel i can connect with. it is exciting to me that the ideas of christianity can be so accessible to anyone seeking peace and justice.

now, what does this have to do with my identity crisis? i will tell you.

Ephesians 5
²⁴Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

as i was saying before, almost everything that is important to me, as a christian, often makes perfect sense to those uninterested in my faith. however, when i get to the part about a woman in a christian marriage (submission - ahhh), everything kind of falls apart. i picture in my head a conversation between myself and one of these progressive, liberal women. i barely get the words 'wives, submit . . .' out of my mouth and she punches me right in the face. i do not want to get punched. i do not want to stop having these wonderful, unifying conversations. what do i do?

actually, this isn't just about not getting punched. this is also about reconciling within me what sometimes feels like a nagging discrepancy. i believe that i was created by a loving God. i believe that i was created as a beautiful, feminine human. i believe that, as this beautiful, feminine human, i am just as valuable to my Creator as any other human and have just as much to offer. why, then would this Creator tell me to submit to another human? surely i was not created somehow inferior, in need of someone else to make me more complete, make my life more full and worthy. it is difficult not to interpret this piece of scripture as a kind of blow to women. i'm sorry if that's upsetting, but it's true. if, in a workplace, my supervisor told me to submit to another employee, would it not be right to assume that that supervisor thought that other employee somehow more able than myself?

all of this was bothering me in an undeniable and increasing way. last weekend, in fact, the sermon at church included this passage that includes the 's word.' i cried tears of frustration through most of the sermon - not something i have ever done before. i just couldn't figure out how to reconcile my own understanding of God with this idea of wives submitting to their husbands.

(note: it still bothers me that some christian men seem to accept this whole idea without question. fight with us to clear up this whole thing, to make sense of it. please don't just take it for granted.)

a lot has happened in my mind since last sunday. many conversations have taken place, much reflection and prayer has gone on, and i think that i'm finally at peace, or at least approaching peace. the following are things that have help me approach peace.

• Ephesians 5 ²⁵Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her - if i was in a relationship with someone, anyone, romantic or otherwise, and i 100% trusted that they had my best interest at heart and that they loved me as much as Christ loves the church, why wouldn't i trust them to make a decision that affected both of us?
• the idea of 'servant leadership' (every milliganite's ears just perked) is a very christian idea, and one that is a bit foreign to those many of those not committed to that faith. this concept of leading someone by serving them - leading them into selflessness and love by showing it to them - is not exactly a Wall Street key to success. therefore, when we speak of 'submission,' minds automatically think of being stepped on, not of being raised up. this submission that i speak of, and that i think the Bible speaks of, is a (somewhat-in our better moments) natural response to overwhelming love. if a husband's 'leadership' is one of sacrifice and love (Christ), then the wife's submission is similar, is it not? one might call this relationship one of mutual submission.
  
• it is a problem of language. if this person who may or may not be punching me in the face (see earlier paragraph) saw a marriage dedicated to these principals of love and submission, i don't think they would find it misogynistic at all. i think they would find it beautiful. it's only when this relationship is described that there are problems - there is no way to say submission without tempting your audience to pull out their copy of the Emancipation Proclamation.
  
• i am only instructed to practice this 'submission' to my husband (should i ever have one). therefore, this is NOT a statement on the way women and men should interact, only husbands and wives.
• men and women are different. they are equal, but different. sometimes i think that we get caught up fighting for women to be equal to men, that we find ourselves fighting for women to be the same as men. i don't want to be the same as a man. i want to be a woman. so, i should accept that because we are different, there are important things that i can offer a husband (should i ever have one) that are less important that he offer me, things that he will value more than i will. i haven't really figured out what all of these things are, mostly due to lack of experience. i have observed, however, that maybe men need more to feel respected, trusted and reliable, whereas women need more to feel valued, appreciated and loved. so maybe this submission/love type of relationship helps cater to the needs of both sexes. who knows. i could be way off - like i said, a lack of experience.

well, i think that's about it. my identity crisis is not over, but i am making progress. hopefully these things will help me avoid drowning in an angry sea and/or being punched in the face.

how did i get here?

it's funny how tricky life can be.

in some moments, i feel completely in on top of my life - everything i do, everything that happens is voluntary and constructive.

in other moments, in moments that pass more slowly and prove more consuming, i feel a victim. i feel as though the world just happens to me without any regard for what i want from it - and i can't remember a time when i didn't feel this way.



i fear that i have slipped into the second moments as of late. i'm not sure why. i think much of it has to do with things coming to an end - the past couple of years has been filled with things coming to an end, and i think i've been worn down. i'm tired of things ending before i'm completely ready. sure, i've learned that i am never really 'ready' to let go of good things, and if i kept them that long, i wouldn't remember them so fondly. but still, there is a part of me - the mourning part - that has done it's share recently, and is trying to quit, though that just seems to intensify this mourning sensation.

oscar begat (the band i've been playing with for the past 2 or 3 years) is no more - sort of. as it has existed, it is no more. the name may appear again, but will most likely never represent what it has. i thought i was ready to let this go. i will certainly miss playing shows like that (how else will i get people to look at me?), but i think the reason that my 'mourning bone' is quaking under the pressure is that not everyone involved in this dissolution seems to be mourning as much as i, or even at all.

i know i've written before about my codependence, and here it is again - i'm sad because not everyone cares about something as much as i want them to. that's all. are my feelings hurt? yes. am i taking it personally? yes. can i appreciate that all of this may be a tad ridiculous? yes. does that change the way i feel? no.

i'm not even sure why i'm writing about this. oh yeah, i write to be rid of things : )

i want to be done with it without confrontation, so i'll write about it here.

why i'd sometimes rather not be called a Christian

i love the Bible. i think it's full of divinely-inspired ideas to help us live our best lives. however, when i see how some people interpret the Bible, it both devastates and terrifies me.
-
(if you would like to know what, exactly, this blog is in direct response to, please read this article: Rebranding Hate in the Age of Obama. apparently, the coming-to-office of a intelligent, articulate, popular African American has brought about a surge of Bible-fueled racism. really?)
-
in the Bible (NASV), the word 'love' is used 320 times.
-
the word 'hate' is used 90 times.
-
in the New Testament (where Jesus' life is), the word 'love' is used 189 times.
-
in the New Testament (where Jesus' life is), the word 'hate' is used 12 times.
-
(courtesy of biblegateway.com)
-
i'm not here to discount the Old Testament - certainly there is much to be gleaned from Israel's colorful history and the ongoing efforts of people to commune with God (something we've yet to perfect). be that as it may, i cannot deny that the New Testament has a certain special relevance, a voice into my life that speaks words a bit different than many of those from the Old Testament. Jesus himself said (in Matt. 5):
-

43"You have heard that it was said,

'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR

and hate your enemy.'
44"But I say to you,

love your enemies

and pray for those who persecute you.

-

though these are only two verses out of an abundance of text, this idea of putting ones own grievances aside in order to show love to those for whom hate naturally rises, saturates the teachings of Jesus (the man for whom this faith is named, by the way). i could copy and paste a hundred or more verses into this blog, in which we are compelled to show love to everyone (especially those we consider enemies), but i will not.

-

the point of all of this is to express my bewilderment at the ability of people (fellow Christians) to take this book and build hate on it: racism, sexism, homophobia, general judgement on the 'thous' who are not 'holy'. how do they do it? how do they live lives devoted to God that embody the opposite of the thing that permeates the heart of God (love, in case you weren't paying attention)?

-

more importantly, how do i do it? what things in my life, what ideas, opinions, lifestyle choices, judgements, etc., do i continually uphold in the unfounded belief that they are godly? scary, right? i don't believe that these members of KKK offshoots believe that they are in direct opposition to the will of God, though I believe they are. could the same be said about me?

-

these are the times that i begin to think that the Roman Catholic Church of the middle ages had it right - only learned, holy, clergy-people should be able to read the Bible and then tell the rest of us what it means. sure, some have argued that the corruption of the church in that era surpasses that of any other time or place - church+simony+the plague+docetism+state=general licentiousness, to describe the tip of the iceberg - but i think there is something to be said for a bit of discrimination when it comes to Biblical exegesis.

-

i suppose the biggest problem is that, for every single person who opens the Bible (or visits biblegateway.com), there is a different set of lenses through which the text is seen. no wonder there are thousands of (sometimes feuding) denominations. i guess the only thing we can do is recognize our own prejudices, and pray for clear vision. example: if i knew that i had a tendency toward homophobia, i would say to myself 'self, try not to read your own homophobia into the Bible'. and then i would say to God, 'God, please help me see/hear your words clearly, apart from my own biases.' if every Christian (including myself) practiced this sort of honest pursuit of truth, abandoning tradition and convention, if necessary, i think that there would be less times that i would rather not be called a Christian.

beautiful baptist babies

the blog title may or may not make sense when you've read this, but i am a sucker for alliteration.

i have had a few blog ideas floating around in my head for a while, but haven't sat down and written them. ideally, they would have come at three very different times, each fully developed, written and posted before the next arrived, but here we are. they are very different, too: one is reflective/spiritual, one is more creative/subject to your own interpretation, and the other is a bit political/ecclesiastical. i'm just going to write them all here, now. that's right, it's a three-for-the-price-of-one sort of deal, except there is no actual currency involved, just thoughts and reading . . .

--------------------------------------

i do not have children. but i do, from time to time, take responsibility for my two young nieces. they are dears and i love them very much. there are, however, times when they are in my care that i am grateful that i do not have children.


one of these times was just this past week. i was babysitting, and, like the fun aunt that i am, letting them watch a new movie that nana had given them for easter. we were watching it in the 'back house' (not their house, though only a yard away - not yard as in the measurement, yard as in a grassy knoll). anyway, one of the girls (who will remain nameless, to protect her sparkling reputation) was being particularly whiny, even though, as I saw it, she should have been enjoying herself thoroughly.


from time to time, when she would express herself in an inappropriate manner, i would threaten to cut her movie-viewing short and bring her back to her house. these threats bounced right off of her grumpy little aura and it soon came time for me to prove that i was serious.


i threw her over my shoulder and carried her home.


she was displeased.


in her defence, she had been sick, it was getting late, and she is only 4 years-old (her anonymity is slipping).


i did feel bad, but i needed her to know what acceptable behavior was and was not. in fact, i tried to reason with her - telling her that if she was obedient, calmed down, brushed her teeth and put on her pjs, then i would take her back to finish the movie. these offers, like the earlier threats, went unheard. i could hardly hear them myself, above the crying.


in the end, i sat on her bedroom floor, watching her stand with her fists clenched toward the floor and her open mouth toward the ceiling, as if she were about to take-off.


eventually (after about 45 minutes), she stopped crying , apologized and was as cute as ever, but i couldn't shake her tantrum.


i love her. she knows i love her and she loves me. the terrible woe that had befallen her was of her own doing, but she built a sort of wall between us for those 45 minutes. she did not want my help or comfort, even resented it. there really was nothing i could do until she decided to warm up.


i was effected by this because, as i watched her in her out-of-control state, i couldn't help but see myself.


i know that many people don't get christianity, or why anyone would commit themselves to such a thing, but i think, in it's most timeless, simplest form, christianity is just a relationship with the Creator. that's all. kind of like being a sister is always just a relationship with a sister - something you can't really be rid of, but the nature of which, you can control.

what does this have to do with caelia (anonymous no more)? well, i can't help but think that what i experienced was a bit like what God experiences. i just wanted to give her good things, and then comfort her, help her make the best of the situation she had tainted, but she wouldn't let me do any of it.

--------------------------------------

i wanted to tell her how pretty she looked. and she did look pretty. her hair fell perfectly and it's dark hue framed her fair face and light eyes with stunning precision. her make-up was bright, but she wore it well. her green dress fit close around her body, and her dainty shoes lengthened her graceful stance.

she was beautiful. maybe more beautiful than i had ever seen her.

but i couldn't say so.

i was too hurt. i still am too hurt. i smiled and nodded, wishing that such trivial gestures could carry with them all that i meant to say. all that i wanted her to know.

to tell her she was beautiful would be to pretend that these compliments were the most important things i had for her. they were not. they probably never will be because my mouth would never form those words - forever frozen, bound by chains of inner conflict.

and so, i will see her again. she will be beautiful. maybe even more beautiful, but i will not say it. it will not be able to say it. it seems a crime to let such loveliness go unpraised, especially in one for whom i have such love. it seems a crime indeed. but many more crimes have been committed before this one, and it is these crimes that close my mouth full of honesty into a sweet smile.

--------------------------------------

evangelical christianity.

let us, just for a moment, compare christian denominations to ice cream flavors. i love vanilla ice cream. i think it's great. it's tasty, it's trusty and i know what i'm getting. but, i would never pretend that vanilla ice cream is the only flavor of ice cream worth trying. if i were to decide that it's vanilla or nothing for me, then i would be viewed as ignorant and borderline masochistic. why would i ever deprive myself of the joy of other ice cream flavors? they have so much to offer - endless horizon-broadening potential. sherbets, for instance, promise a tangy, fruity bite - something that vanilla, in all it's deliciousness, couldn't hope to achieve. why would i forever deprive my pallet of such an experience?

i wouldn't. i shouldn't. i wont.

to be honest, and forgive me for being a bit dramatic, i have felt oppressed by evangelical christianity as of late. despite all of the wonderful things that it has to offer, sometimes i find it short-sighted and bound by conservation conventions that have questionable roots in scripture and seem to be in direct contention with the heart of God. beyond that, maybe it is just sort of oppression i would feel if i were to only ever eat vanilla ice cream - like i'm missing out on other great parts of the catholic (universal) church because i've found something that i like.

i have thought very seriously on and off over the past few years of joining the episcopal church. especially after my time spent in the anglican church (in england), i think it would be a good fit for me right now - it's physical reverence and routine devotion might be just what i need to recover from years of very emotional and, at times, narcissistic worship.

i'm still not sure. i really do like the church i attend now, and it has a relatively faint few of the things from which i seek refuge. who knows, maybe i wont ever leave, i will just keep talking about it. i suppose it's different if you admit that there is more out there and choose not to partake - better than pretending you've found all you need.

lilacs

on saturday, i bought a small bottle of perfume that smells of lilacs.

i wear it.

i love it.

it makes me feel that, though the rest of my body is enjoying the beauty of spring in north carolina, my nose believes itself to be in new hampshire, where the lilac is the state flower, and its gentle, yet invigorating scent fills the air in the bright northeastern spring.

the scent makes me feel happy and new. there is something special about spring in a place where there is a real winter from which to recover. when those lilac bushes finally bloom, proving themselves unbroken by the months of frost, it refreshes the spirit. what can i not overcome, in the face of this delicate purple flower, one that is just as delightful as it was before the snows came? which of us can boast such resilliance?

i am told that there are lilacs in carrboro.

i must find them.

it's been 17 days

oh my. it's been 17 days and i haven't posted anything.

you know what i blame? my job. i've been actually working all day, every day over the past few weeks. isn't that nuts? i know, i'm about to ask for a raise if i'm going to actually be doing things.

i jest, i jest. it's been nice, actually. i feel like a real professional, with real responsibilities who doesn't online shop more than the average real responsible professional.

there is a lull right now, and so, though i'm not particularly motivated to write, i will, just so i don't forget how.

there have been a few developments in my life:
i have health insurance for the first time, well, ever. so i've had an eye exam, a physical, and there's a dentist appointment on the books. i'm actually getting glasses for reading and computer stuff, apparently i'm far-sighted. who knew? i picked out these really hip banana republic glasses, but after being told their cost, i opted from some lovely little glasses out of the (not-labeled-this-way-but-i-assume) bargain drawer. they're nice, black and simple. i resisted the temptation to make gains in my life-long quest to appear intellectual and artistic by choosing simple frames. i think it's good for me.

i started going to classes at the gym - yoga first and now i've been to one 'body pump' class. i plan to go to more, but it's been 3 days since my first one, and i am just now able to walk up and down stairs without gripping the railing for my life. i'm hoping it will get easier as i get more ripped. i also went to a 'body jam' class because i like to dance. it was kind of fun, but full of middle-aged women who have been doing that same routine for months. i wasn't crazy about the choreography either. maybe i'll try a different instructor . . .

this happened a while ago, but i think it was pretty great and i never blogged about it: my lovely friend johannah and i, while she was here visiting, were the 'featured performers' at jack sprat's (a fun local bar) weekly open mic, which happened to fall on st. patrick's day. it was great fun. the guy running the thing (alex, i believe), plugged us between each act that preceded us, which was fun, we played a whole mini-set and even got paid a bit. it was johannah's first paying gig, and my first gig in nc that didn't involve any of my family members. it went well - everyone was already having a good time, so it was a good crowd to play for. johannah played some of her lovely original music (which can be found here: http://myspace.com/johannahswank), and i played a few covers: carey, by joni mitchell (for the second time at that venue, but i'm sure no one noticed), what if i stumble, by dc talk (which spurred the following conversation with a jovial young man up front -

young man: was that jars of clay?
me: no, dc talk, but you were close.
young man: i knew i heard it at church. what, are you trying to make me feel bad?
me: (laughing) that is not our intent. we're just here to have a good time.)

jo and i assisted each other with back-up vocals where we could, and overall, it was a great experience. playing with friends is always a lot of fun. just like playing with family, but different. i closed out the set with closing time, by semisonic, which was particularly fun because all of the responsibly-enjoying-their-alcohol folks sang along.

speaking of gigs, oscar begat had a show last week. i was not really that pumped about it. i don't know why. it was in durham on a thursday and it was a shortish set, so i didn't' really invite many people. sometimes those shows, those ones that i'm not that excited about, end up being some of the greatest. this was like that - there was a lot of energy and we just had a whole lot of fun. it made me sad in light of the impending dissolution of oscar begat, but i guess it's better to go out on a high note.

speaking of gigs, again, i went to a show at the pinhook in durham last friday: the last show of tooth, a wonderful durham-based metal band including my friend noah, the drummer, who is an animal once you get him behind a kit, and sometimes when you don't : )

i stood on a chair against the right wall of the venue so that i could see and so that i would not be moshed. i kind of felt like a mom, watching the mosh-pit. i was glad that everyone was having fun, but also very concerned for their safety. it was a great show, lots of energy and adoring fans.

an ending little story: i just joined goodreads.com. i sent an email to some people asking them to join goodreads.com too, so i can see what they're reading/have read/recommend. i started the email with 'i'm bored at work . . .'. i, without thinking, sent the email to my boss at her work email. that's all.

i grow a bit anxious

i haven't posted recently. as time passes between posts, i grow increasingly anxious. why? umm. well, it's either because i'm afraid i'll lose readers (hah), or i'm afraid i've run out of things to say (hah hah).

but, in all seriousness, i think it's the latter.

i don't, this minute, have anything profound to say. in fact, it's arguable that i ever have anything profound to say. in any case, i'd like to thank everyone for all of the feedback i received concerning my last post. if you're a blogger and wonder if anyone reads your blog, write about gender issues and you'll find out pretty quick.

the response was generally positive, with some concerns here and there about my denial of gender differences (we'll stay away from 'roles') - i think i've come to an understanding with all those concerned, i think. (women and men are different, but equal.) if anyone would like to enlighten/challenge me further, please do, or i will, in fact, kick you in the shin :)

someone mentioned the rising generation of males' lack of respect for women - they called it heartbreaking. i would have to agree. though i think that the rising generation of people have a general lack of respect for most things - the elderly, the middle-aged, me, each other. they do respect what tv tells them to respect, which i wish included regular people, rather than only the rich, famous, powerful, beautiful and plastic. is this a development? i don't know. i suppose that as generations pass, civil propriety is less and less of a concern and the instant gratification promised by technology captures focus.

also, it seems that as these young men continue to disrespect women, the young women expect less, require less. which came first? i couldn't say, but none of it is good. if the men were to begin respecting more, perhaps the women would expect more, but it would work the other way too, presumably.

it's funny how scantily clad women singing and dancing in ways that some (I) might find inappropriate think of themselves as being empowering to women.

i read about this band (they will remain nameless, though i'm sure a quick google search would steal their anonymity). there are 4 or 5 of them - all women, and they play shows without shirts. in the article, they were quoted as saying that they do this to empower young women to be confident and comfortable with their bodies.

am i the only one who finds this to be ridiculous? they are beautiful, thin musicians, and they think that by taking off their clothes, they are going to make young women feel better about themselves? they get more attention for their lack of clothing than for their music, and this is supposed to be empowering women?

isn't that kind of what we've been working against for decades? (i'll stop with the rhetorical questions now.) no one was arguing that women are attractive without their shirts. people were arguing what women could offer with their shirts on. this (maybe) talented group of women would inspire me if they left their clothes on and made good music - innovative, truthful music. that would make me feel empowered as a women - to know that i could make it in the music industry based on hard work and talent and without sacrificing any clothing.

hmm. i promise that when i started this post, i wasn't going to write about anything except some inconsequential bits of information about my life - i spent a lovely week with my friend johannah, we played a fun little show, i'm selling my car, i'm looking for another car to buy, yaddah yaddah yaddah. and here i am, at the end of another tirade.

my apologies for your thoughts :)