Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Monday, March 10, 2014

A Legacy of Song

Last month, some of you may have noticed my post at The Post Calvin that spoke about my experiences with hymns in church.  This present post relates to that, if only obliquely.

Music is uniquely powerful.  I think many, if not most people feel that power and celebrate it in little moments in their lives.  I'm not a rockstar singer--I dropped out of choir after eighth grade--and my Saxophone is gathering dust in my closet (and is probably also infested with mice, but that's a different story).  Nevertheless, I think I am one of those people for whom music means more than for most.

I'm told that this is because of my grandmother.

Jane Eileen on the Left, Jane Eileen on the Right, Jane Eileens all around, late into the night, ba da ba da
My maternal grandparents were both, I'm told, excellent singers: my grandmother, Jane, a soprano, my grandfather, Joe, a baritone.  When they stood next to each other in church, any number of their six children next to them, they filled those babies' heads with melodies and harmonies and a subconscious joy in the sound of a well crafted, well executed song.

Grandma spent much of her time cleaning, crafting, fiddling about around the house, and unless she was speaking, she was singing.  Sometimes, she would sing songs, but most times, she just sang notes.  I have a vivid memory of watching her in the kitchen in Barrington, Illinois, her soft, wordless singing floating to me over the sound of the rushing tap, the sun catcher on the window in front of her holding colorful images of the birds she loved so much, in part because their songs matched her own.

My mother, also Jane, continued the tradition of constant melodizing, and in fact got a bachelor's degree in vocal performance.  I remember nights as a child when I would wake from a nightmare and my mother would come in to comfort me back to sleep, and I would ask her to sing the Star Spangled Banner, which I called the star song.  I thought it was a beautiful song, and I loved my mother's voice, and the combination of the two soothed many of my frightened fits.  When I would listen to the radio or watch movies, I would sometimes hear a song so lovely, I felt the need to memorize it so that I could sing it to my own someday-children in their troubled moments.

When my mother and I would go to churches other than our home church--if we were out of town visiting family, or if we were attending a first communion, christening, or wedding--I would secretly hope that others around us would hear my mother's singing and be jealous of me because I got to hear it every day.  I got to wake up to my mother singing along to her hymns as she read her Bible in the morning before work.  I got to listen to her sing the harmonies to all the television theme songs.  I got to be serenaded on my birthday.  Everyone should have been jealous of me.

The moment I learned that not everyone sang as much as my matriarchs was, in fact, in a church.  I don't remember what church, or when, but I remember looking around during the congregational singing and seeing dozens of people merely staring up at the stage, some bobbing their heads, some standing with an emotional hand in the air, but none of them singing.  I remember that I tried it, right there.  I tried to just look at the words on the screen as they passed, tried to not sing and just to listen.  I enjoyed the experience of hearing all the voices around me raising up those words, but I did not enjoy not singing.  The words were there, the music was playing, I needed to sing.

The moment I learned that not everyone sang like my matriarchs was, also, in a church.  When I was in England, I weekly attended St. Thomas with St. Maurice with a large contingent of other Calvin students.  One of those students, a great friend of mine, Hope, often stood near me during worship, belting out the words to songs familiar and not.  Her voice, nothing like my mother's or grandmother's sweet sopranos, was, at first, jarring to my ears.  I wanted her to be more on-pitch.  I wanted her to be softer.  I wanted her to sing as beautifully as the women I'd grown used to.

The moment I learned that the beauty in singing comes not just in the sound, but in the act, was not in a church, but in my mother's living room.  At the time, this living room was furnished in thick, sound- and light-blocking curtains hanging in the doorways, several large plastic containers of towels and other hygiene products, and a heated hospice bed where Grandma lay for weeks, her Alzheimer's preventing her from sitting up or standing.  It was a hot July in Chicagoland, but the air conditioning kept my mother, my aunt, and I all comfortably cool as we stood around Grandma's bed, in which, after a few more long hours, she would die.  We held her hands, we ran our fingers through her still-thick, white hair.  We sang to her.

White coral bells, upon a slender stalk
Lily of the valley deck my garden walk
Oh, don't you wish that you could hear then ring
That will happen only when the fairies sing

My aunt began the round.  Like me, aunt Judith was raised with music in the air around her, and like me, she could not make it as beautifully as she wanted to.  Then my mother, with her practiced and wonderful voice, joined.  Their voices came together in a way families should, like at Christmas when Grandpa reads the nativity story to us, first from a rocking chair in the big Tree Room in Barrington, Illinois, and now from a television in my uncle's sitting room.  Their voices made magic, and it didn't matter that one was clearly stronger than the other, or that one had a quaver to it that kept it from hitting every little note in the arpeggio.

As the song is a round, I joined in third, coming in just in time to be in unison with Judith, though I didn't know the song as well as she did.  And now I was in the family too.  And it felt like Christmas feels, like church when everyone sings, even off pitch, like the dishes in the kitchen with the birds watching.  It really was a magic beyond explanation or description.  She gave us our voices, and as we sat there around her, we felt compelled to give them back.  We just couldn't not sing.


Sunday, December 15, 2013

What is the best policy, again?

This morning, I read a blog post about modesty, and I have been musing about it in the back of my mind all day.  You should read it and then come back to this post so we can discuss it together.

If you don't want to do that, I'll tl;dr it for you.

1) Women's bodies are policed in frustrating ways from both ends of the spectrum: in magazines, TV shows, movies, etc, women are told to be thinner, fitter, more pleasing to men in visual and sexual contexts, and in churches (as well as other, non-Christian arenas) across the world, women are told to cover up, to strive for plainness, to please men by not leading them into sin.



2) This is baffling to the Christian woman who wrote the blogpost (and to me) because nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus say that women are are fault for their brothers' lustful stumbles, nor does the Bible ever lay the onus on women to prevent the sinful thoughts of others.

3) We, as Christians and a Church turn modesty into objectification by blaming women for the sins of their Christian brothers, and by making women ashamed of their bodies, telling them that their physical form has been corrupted by Satan into an instrument of sin.

4) The blogger finishes her post by saying "Dress for yourself in a way that is glorifying to God, not men. ... Prioritize strength, dignity and good deeds, and then dress accordingly.  Find something that makes you comfortable. Find something that is ethically made. Find something that gives you the freedom to run with abandon into those incoming waves—and revel in this body and this world God gave you to enjoy."  In the earlier version of the post that I read, she also included something along the lines of "Wear what makes you happy."

This, my sort-of response post, is something I've been writing in my head for many years, my thoughts on this topic that have been simmering for a long time, and are now coming to the surface because I think I've finally formed an opinion worth standing on.

-=-=-=-=-=-

First of all, I should preface this to all the non-Christian or not-religious readers I may or may not have.  I realize that this whole argument may seem pretty dumb to you.  The more I study Christianity and faith from the inside, the more I've come to realize how utterly ridiculous it must seem from the outside.  I can appreciate the struggles non-Christian people have with both the Church and its faith.  I've heard a lot of off-hand summarizations of Christianity that go something like, "A bunch of people who rely on a centuries-old text to dictate their every day life and hold way too much stock in a guy who asked them to drink his blood and eat is body."  Our rituals, our beliefs, and our culture are hard to stomach, and I've even spent a lot of my Christian life struggling to get to the bottom of them.



That said, if you disagree with what I say here and would like to have a discussion about it, please remember that, if we come from different foundational beliefs, that discussion is going to be heavy and intimate, and will go deeper than just the words in this post, so maybe we should find a better place to have that conversation than in the comments section or on my Facebook.

-=-=-=-=-=-

I've always had a problem with the "Modesty is the Best Policy!" speeches that we got in church as kids and teenagers.  For one thing, the youth group leaders would separate us into two groups--boys and girls--as if our trials in the arena of sexuality and self-expression were too different, and moreover, needed to be kept secret from one another.  I always wanted to know what was going on in the boys' conversations about these issues, and I always wanted them to know what was going on in the girls', but that wasn't allowed for some reason.

I don't really think that men's and women's struggles with lust and objectification are vastly different, and I definitely don't think they should be trade secrets that separate us.  It's that separation and miscommunication that leads to statements like, "Women shouldn't be allowed to be church leaders or pastors because their bodies will lead the men in the congregation to sin."  The truth of it is that both men and women can be distracted by men and women's bodies.  If I had a nickel for every girl whose crush on a male pastor or worship leader distracted her from the message of the church, I could probably pay for all the Christmas gifts I bought this year and get myself a little something extra, too.  That fact would be more widely known and accepted if men and women in church talked together about things like sexuality and attraction.

The reason the idea of modesty has been on my mind a lot recently (more recently, anyway, than the Sunday School sex talks I got in high school) is because, in college, I became really gung-ho about feminism and gender equality, and it has since changed my view of myself and my role as a woman in Christianity.  A lot of topics come into play with the discussion of women in the Church, and modesty is one of them that pops up quite frequently and in rather inconspicuous ways.

For instance, when I was 18 and younger, going to church with my parents or friends, I felt convicted not to wear tank tops.  I felt uncomfortable with my shoulders uncovered, not because I didn't like tank-tops in general, but because I didn't think they were something a Godly woman should wear, and I didn't want people at church to think I was anything but Godly.

This attitude persisted for some time into college, but eventually, a fundamental change occurred, and I stopped thinking that showing off my shoulders was unGodly, but I still worried about what people at church would think of me if I did it.  I worried, not about men lusting after me, but about women and pastors and indoctrinated children passing judgements about me and my faith because my skirt was too short or my cleavage was too exposed.

I can't attest to whether or not anyone at any of my previous churches actually did pass such judgements on me, but I can say that I was no longer trying to please God.  I was trying to please God's followers. I was not even trying to protect men struggling with lustful thoughts; I was trying to protect myself from the scorn of anyone struggling with a judgmental nature.

And I think that was the sin I committed.  Not only was I passing judgment prematurely on my brothers and sisters in Christ by assuming that they would think so poorly of me so easily, but I was also putting their opinion of me above God's.

I think the blogger from the above post said it well when she emphasized that women (perhaps specifically Christian women) should not be dressing for men--whether it be to please them sexually or to please them spiritually--or other people in our church congregations.  We should be doing everything for the glory of God, and that includes the way we dress.  That is different than wearing whatever makes you happy (which may be the reason she has since retracted that statement) because God doesn't think that our purpose on this earth is to merely be happy.  But that is also different than policing our bodies or anyone else's bodies and making the argument that one person can prevent another's sin.

If, as we search through our closets in the morning (or, in my case, the pile of semi-clean clothes strewn across the floor...) we are too preoccupied thinking about how we are going to serve our Lord today, or about how our clothes are or are not going to get in the way of our worldly worship getting accomplished, isn't that more important than thinking about how many eyes we will or won't turn with our scoop neck top or our short shorts?  This should also be true of men, whose bodies can also be distracting to those who see them.  Shouldn't a man be more concerned with whether his T-shirt will be thin and breathable enough for him to do his work at Habitat for Humanity, than with whether the way it accentuates his shoulder blades may lead a fellow volunteer down the path that leads to destruction?

Most importantly, if a Christian does catch themselves objectifying someone who is made in the image of God, shouldn't they do whatever it takes for their own heart to undo that, rather than turn the sin and shame on that person who might not have had any malicious intent, or may have come from a culture where their chosen dress is the norm and is completely socially acceptable?  Perhaps, when we catch ourselves in the act of objectification, we should pray to God for wisdom and clarity, to relearn to see that person as a unique individual who fits into God's cosmic plan for the redemption of the world.  Perhaps we should find an unobtrusive way reach out to them, to have a conversation or share a meal so that we might come to know and see beyond their bodies.  Or perhaps we should just remove ourselves from the situation, quoting scripture to ourselves and our inner demons, as Jesus did during his 40 days in the wilderness.

I think churches and Christians should focus as much or more of their energies on teaching their congregants how to avoid objectifying human beings as they do on teaching women how to cover up their sex-appeal. And I think that pastors and church leaders could make much more headway in the Biblical modesty department if they taught women and men fiscally and morally responsible ways to purchase, make, and wear clothing and bodily adornments instead of telling women that tank tops and mini dresses are the devil's playthings.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

The War on Christmas

If you have completely read the header image of this blog, you have probably noticed that there is a "Lord" in it, which probably tipped you off (if you are someone who needed tipping off) that it was a quote from the Bible.

Secret's out (if you are someone who thought it was a secret): I am a Christian.  I'm pretty deep into it, have been for a long time.  It looks like there's no hope for my rehabilitation.  The heavenly Doctor has given me only an eternity left to live.  In lieu of flowers, please send food because I haven't gone grocery shopping in a while.

All joking aside, I am a Christian.  Through and through, I believe in Jesus, I go to Church on Sundays, I pray as daily as I can manage, I read my Bible as daily as I can remember, and I study that Bible and my God in a community with other Christians.  I take my faith seriously, and while I struggle, I do try to put my love and worship of God before all else in my life.

Which is why I really hate the wars that people--predominantly Americans, I believe--declare on various "Christian" things.  Recently, it has been marriage, but I that's a whole post in and of itself.  A more timely war, though, is The War on Christmas.  This comes around every year at this time, and I am so sick of it.

I guess I should clarify: specifically, I'm sick of people saying it's a thing.

This quote could be misleading to someone who hasn't seen the movie "Mean Girls."  If you are one of those people and you are confused by the wording of this meme...how did you find my blog?  I mean, I don't even like the movie and I've seen it.  Half the internet has seen it, and I was under the impression that the other half had seen enough to understand the many memes that come from it.  Seriously...who are you?  How did you get here?  Can I interview you for an anthropological study?

There are some tangentially-religious topics that the conservative media addresses that should be responded to with care, diplomacy, gentle words, and loving language.  But I don't believe this is one of them.

From what I can tell, this particular breed of warmongers fear the "politically correct" army is soiling the holid--I'm sorry, the Christmas Season by using the word "Holiday" instead of the word "Christmas."

There have probably been lawsuits against public displays of affection for Christmas.  I think I've heard of people suing to have outdoor nativities removed from courthouses and a quick google search turns up some other weird stuff about banners that said Merry Christmas and discussions pro and against the ACLU.  It is unfortunate to me that Christmas, which has already become a time to celebrate capitalism and materialism, has also become the battle ground for free speech.  But to a larger degree, the backlash against and the use of these lawsuits as proof that there is a war on Christmas (and therefore Christianity) is what really troubles me.

Ostensibly, the United States is a Christian country.  A non-Christian has never been elected president, we swear oaths of office and honesty on the Bible, and people like to pretend that the founding fathers were God-fearing Christians themselves.  But, in actuality, we are not a Christian country.  Our country has morals and as a society we have a somewhat stable belief system, but we are hardly Christian on the whole, and I don't see that as a bad thing.  We are made up almost entirely of immigrants who came here from hundreds of countries and many different religions, and it just makes sense that, even if our country started as a Christian nation (it didn't), is hasn't remained one and it can't try to become one again.

In actuality, Christmas is Christian (obligatory "CHRISTmas" comment).  Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus, whom Christians believe to have been the incarnation of God who eventually grew up to die for their sins, thus making humans' reunion with God possible.  Ostensibly, around the country, Christmas is more than that now.  It, like the United States itself, has taken dozens of different cultures from around the globe and mashed them into something that Americans can all celebrate if they want to.  The Christmas we get time off work for is based more on an amalgamation of Saint Nicholas's feast day and pagan celebrations of the winter solstice than it is on Christ.  It is a holiday where people travel to see their families, exchange gifts under a tree and in giant socks, eat honeyed ham, and watch It's a Wonderful Life.  If that family is Christian, they will likely also celebrate the birth of Christ, but if that family is not Christian (and even sometimes if they are) they will skip that part.

So doesn't it make sense that the not-actually-Christian State is a little loose with their actually-Christian-holiday terminology? People who get the time off work, who buy the gifts on sale, who put up the tree and lights and excessive lawn ornamentation aren't necessarily celebrating Christian Christmas, anymore than the people who buy the peeps and hide the eggs are celebrating Christian Easter.  So what does it matter to us if they don't want to call it Christmas?  Doesn't the term "holiday" fit it better, due to its ambiguity, its fluidity, and its ability to cover a lot of ground in a single word?

I guess my main beef with "the war on Christmas" propaganda is that I don't feel like wishing people "Happy holidays!" makes it harder for me to enjoy the holidays I personally celebrate (which are actually plural, including my birthday, Christmas, and New Year's Eve...).  I'd feel the same way if I owned a company that sent out holiday cards, put up banners, or threw parties and I'd feel the same way if I were a teacher who wanted to decorate her classroom in December.  Neither my company as a whole nor my classroom as a structure celebrates any holidays. No one is telling me how to celebrate them myself.  No one is telling me I can't talk to others about how I celebrate my December holidays.

I do not see how my freedom is impinged, and I do see how my use of the word "Holidays" fits the mold of the season better that "Christmas" for most people that I talk to.  It's not a matter of a war against that oh-so-terrible concept of political correctness.  It's a matter of accuracy and efficiency.  And you know who values efficiency?


And, seriously.  If you put yourself in a war against the Borg, I won't even wish you good luck.  Luck is irrelevant.

Happy Holidays!
Mary Margaret

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Have I lost my love on the wings I've found?

[Title Explanation Here]

I like to think of myself as strictly a not-heretic, but I have to admit that I have some heretical tendencies.  I remember when I was a kid learning the 10 commandments, I thought there was a sort of hierarchy of easiness.  My thought process looked something like this:

1st Easiest #6 - Do not murder.  
This one's kind of obvious.  I don't think it's possible to accidentally murder anyone, and I figure I'll never want to do it, so there we go.  Commandment in the bag.

2nd Easiest #7 - Do not commit adultery.  

I think very rarely about any future marriage I might have, and even more rarely about sex, so I'll just skip over this one.  Anyway, I figure no one my age could ever break this commandment, so again, in the bag.

Tied in 3rd #1 and #2 - No God but God and No revered images

Duh?  How many other gods are there?  And what sort of image are we talking here? Like that calf that Aaron, like, welded together?  Between my lack of artistic ability and my lack of desire to pray to a cow, I think I'm ok.
Fifth Easiest #5 - Honoring mom and dad
I love my parents.  Done and done. 
Okay, getting challenging #8 - No stealing
I already broke this once at a friend's birthday party when I really wanted a tiny toy dog they had.  But, hey, it was just a little dog, and I'll never do it again.

Fourth Hardest #10 - No coveting

Okay, my neighbor's wife is safe, but that tiny dog was coveted right out of its dollhouse soo...but again, just a dog, and I'll never do it again.

Third Hardest #3 - Don't take the Lord's name in vain

I'm pretty sure I can keep from saying "Oh my God," but peer pressure is a real thing.  We'll see how long this lasts.

Second Hardest #4 - Keep the Sabbath holy

What does this even mean?

This is my holy struggle #9 - No false witness

There was the time I stole the dog and had to come up with a lie to cover it up.  Then there was the time that that lie worked so well I realized I was good at it and then kept doing it, and then convinced (but really, did I?) my entire first-grade class that I was an alien.  Then there was the time that I really wanted the forbidden M&Ms so I told my mom that Dennis had eaten them.  And then there was the time I told my brother I'd eaten the horrid milkshake he'd made me even though I'd asked him not to, when really I'd poured it into his cup (he didn't fall for it, by the way).  And I want to be a writer, does that mean I can only write boring non-fiction stuff about animals and members of Congress?  God, I don't think I can do this.  I just don't think I'm cut out to be your servant.  I'm going to be confessing this sin every couple of minutes; I hope you're prepared.
After a few years of deep meditation on scripture (or, you know, just actually reading them once) I know I got a few things wrong about how the Big 10 actually apply to everyday life.  But it wasn't until I got deep into moving into my new apartment that I realized where my biggest struggles really lie.

Maybe this shouldn't have come as such a shock to me, seeing as I did major in English Language and Literature in college, but as I unpacked my kitchenware, I was surprised by how much heavy and intentional symbolism I found there.

I've got Game of Thrones pint and shot glasses, Marvel Comics tumblers, mugs from London, Calvin's Festival of Faith and Writing, my semester as a student teacher, and even the academic database, JSTOR.  I have plastic cups, bowls, and plates from my college dining hall.

A Song of Ice and Tea
It's not like I accidentally collected all of these items from places, things, and events that have meant a lot to me: I collected them because they came from these meaningful places.  When I look at them, I don't just see kitchenware.  I see all the time I spent enjoying the worlds they come from.  When people give me gifts, especially if they're gifts I see or use all the time, I see the giver when I see the gift.

So all that graven image business with the calf and the goldsmithing that went down without God's approval...looking at my kitchen, that all makes a lot more sense.  I know that, personally, I feel more connected to places and people when I have related stuff around me.  And I have some cross necklaces given to me as gifts that I used to feel the need to wear every day because I felt, in some weird way, like I was wearing my faith.

But if I can see it, if I can touch it, it's not faith; it's knowledge.  And if I can see it and touch it, then it was created and therefor is not the creator and doesn't deserve my faith or worship. According to 2 Corinthians 5:7, "we [Christians] walk by faith, not by sight."

In Knowing God, which my church group is reading together right now, Packer talks for at least a whole chapter about graven images.  He says basically everything I said here, about how they don't lead to faith or to correct worship, but lead us to worship the creation in place of the creator.  I'm not sure that I agree completely with that line of thinking.  I think it might be one of those slippery slope conundrums, but I think you can use images and symbols of God to supplement correct worship without crossing over into worshiping the images and symbols themselves.

My shrine to Michigan Microbrews, created when I moved to Pittsburgh.
...and gradually dismantled afterwards
Jesus says to Thomas in John 20:29, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”  Thomas believed Jesus was the messiah...but he only believed because he could see.  If we can only feel close to God through cross necklaces, rosary beads, and little tokens that we have come to associate with him, I think we are missing out on the great experience that is the true closeness of faith.

I don't know that I know what that true closeness feels like, but I bet it feels better than a tarnished silver cross worn begrudgingly day after day.