singled out
I’m usually fine with being single. I’d like to be married someday, but life is good and I’ve always been (too) independent, so I’m content on my own…..usually. This week was not one of those times.
Nope, didn’t see a cute couple holding hands. Didn’t watch a sappy movie. Didn’t even feel too stressed at the prospect of unpacking and setting up the new house by myself—actually, I enjoy doing this alone without a guy insisting, as one of my friends insists to his wife, that every wall be painted only white.
So, none of those things. Instead I had a glass jug fall on my head.
Thursday morning, while standing on a chair attempting to see if the vat I use for iced tea would fit into the top cabinet (answer: no), I lost my grip and it tipped forward, slamming into my right eye before hitting the ceramic tile and shattering.
Instantly I’m bent over at the waist, one hand pressed to my eye, bruises forming and blood dripping between my fingers, shards of glass everywhere, and no one here: no one to find a butterfly Band-aid so I won’t scar (my first concern, I admit); no one to deal with the mess; no one to advise if it’s worth a trip to the ER; no one to help me find out where the nearest hospital even is.
So I did what I always do: I took care of it myself. I stopped the bleeding and covered the cuts with bright green bandages featuring yellow cartoon giraffes (and made a mental note to buy some normal ones). I iced the bruises. I swept up the glass. I postponed my trip to the grocery so as not to frighten small children.
And I thought how nice it would be to have someone looking out for me now and then, even if it means too many white walls.
twilight zone
In a February USA Weekend interview, author Stephen King compared “Harry Potter” novelist J.K. Rowling and recent phenomenon Stephenie Meyer. “The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn,” he summed up. “She’s not very good.”
In case you are a man without a wife, sister, mother or teenage daughter, Meyer is the author of Twilight and its three follow-up young adult novels about a teenage girl named Bella and her vampire boyfriend Edward. Meyer’s books have been translated into 20 languages, sold 22 million copies just in 2008, and took spots 1-4 on last year’s best-seller list. That’s right, the Twilight series monopolized all four top spots last year.
The only good thing about this is it pushed The Shack to #6. Because King is right—the books aren’t very good. They include run-on sentences even the most junior editor should have caught, repetitive descriptions (we know Edward is hot because his eyes blaze, scorch, or smolder most of the time), and a whole lot of melodrama.
But just as people don’t visit Hard Rock Cafe for high-quality food, people aren’t reading Twilight for high-quality prose–they’re reading for the love story. Meyer has created every woman’s ideal man: mind-bogglingly handsome, funny, intelligent, articulate. He dotes on Bella’s every word and every mood swing. He’s got piles of money, a shiny Volvo, and nothing but time. (He is immortal.) Most of all, he’s Bella’s protector in a way no real man could be, able to run at lightning speed, read thoughts, and stop out of control cars with one hand.
When Charlotte asserted “Women just really want to be rescued” on an episode of Sex and the City, the other women at the table looked at her like she spit in their coffee. This desire to be cared for and protected is one of the few off-limits topics among modern women, because it’s something we’re not supposed to want. We can open that door, schlep that luggage, and fund that retirement account ourselves, thank you. But one or more of these books has been on the NYT bestseller list for years. We may not admit this desire, but we’re spending an awful lot of money to read about its fulfillment for someone else.
Perhaps it’s because God created us this way, and no amount of equal pay (which I firmly support) or power pantsuits (which I don’t) can negate it. The healthy expression of this inner wiring doesn’t include vampires and shouldn’t include victimization; it’s less “rescue” and more regard for our differences as women. For our part, it also includes recognition of men’s equally-unique role as provider and protector.
And, I think, the end of apologies for wanting that. We stopped waiting for the knight on a white horse a long time ago, but the so-pale-he’s-white Edward still entrances us. The books may not be good, but they point us, however melodramatically, to something that is.
free love
At some point every Tuesday, I submit two or three news tidbits for the Christian Standard enews published the next day. On busy weeks with a lot happening this might be accomplished before noon. Other weeks I’ve sat bleary-eyed at my computer until after midnight, scouring church and Bible college websites for something interesting. (Around Halloween I always consider reporting the discovery of a church NOT doing a Harvest Carnival—now that would be newsworthy.)
Tomorrow’s enews will include Summit Christian Church’s “Amnesty Marriage Ceremony.” On Saturday evening the Summit ministry staff conducted a fee-free wedding ceremony open to any interested couple, with a stated goal of encouraging men and women living together to make it legal without the cost and hassle of a big wedding. To participate, the couples just had to show up with a valid marriage license; the church even provided flowers and a photographer.
Apparently there is a big need for this. The “Free Nuptials” program at Harmony Christian Church reaches a similar audience by offering a church wedding at little cost four weekends a year. But HCC takes it a step further; they require each participating couple to attend a Friday night/Saturday seminar and four additional small-group sessions. In return, the church’s sound tech, wedding coordinator, janitorial staff, and senior minister volunteer their services.
At the last small group session, the church issues a challenge. “I ask each couple to honor God’s Word by being celibate from that day until the honeymoon and praying together for God’s blessing on their future marriage,” says Harmony’s senior minister Kevin Pigg. “Scott and Carrie now attend my small group; Carrie returned to her faith and Scott was baptized. Mark and Tricia joined the church after Tricia accepted Christ. Jake and Echo want to start their own small group, and I haven’t even baptized them yet!”
It’s cheaper to live together than alone, and I doubt finances are the only reason some of these couples haven’t married. But I’m glad to see a few churches proactively addressing the issue and encouraging commitment along with cohabitation. And I’m glad Summit picked last Saturday for their big event—I really needed something for tomorrow’s enews.
leading women
So far in my career, I’ve worked for half a dozen men, many of them hard-driving and lacking the warm fuzzy gene. In volunteer and freelance assignments I’ve worked with at least a dozen more. I’ve gotten along famously with all of them.
In that same time span, I’ve worked directly for one woman and alongside a couple others. These relationships are the only serious professional conflicts I’ve experienced.
Sometimes only a member of the group is permitted to generalize about its members or talk honestly about its failures, so I’ll share something a man would be tarred and feathered for saying—women in leadership do not play well together.
I’m not sure why. Does the salary disparity and glass ceiling still experienced by modern career women allow only the most politically-skilled or aggressive to find success—and then inevitably cause conflict when they start managing others?
Is it generational? I’m sure the women before me had more to prove than my friends and I do today. It could be threatening, infuriating, or both to see my generation climbing the ladder without quite as many male feet stomping us back down.
Or is it culturally learned behavior? For millennia women without muscle or means have been taught to find our power more covertly, from the relatively innocuous (“Honey, just let him think it was his idea”) to the more damaging (you remember Delilah, right?). Although the workplace’s job descriptions and more blatant power structure theoretically eliminate the need for such power games, do we still play them instinctively?
Or is it the mothering instinct? My experiences with women in leadership over me were positive as long as they could be framed as adult/child relationships, with these women teaching me or directing my work. When I wanted to relate as adult/adult—still respecting their authority, but with my own strengths and ideas—things took a turn for the worse.
Or maybe it’s just me—I am, after all, the constant among these situations, so perhaps the log in my own eye is divisiveness and insubordination. Except that no one else seems to think so, and a lot of other women I know—when pressed—will admit to having the same experiences.
In fact, when the guys are in another room, my girlfriends and I discuss these issues. In a way, we’re searching for answers to determine our own options. If only the pushy or manipulative woman can succeed in corporate America (or the corporate megachurch), that means we can either achieve our goals or like who we are. It seems an unnecessary choice.
There are wonderful women leading out there, too, several of whom I consider friends as well as colleagues. But it is interesting that my heartburn and headaches can all be traced back to women. Ladies, this is bad branding for all of us. Our mothers and grandmothers worked hard for appreciation and respect in the workplace. We can’t blow it now that we have some corner offices.
somewhere, God is smiling…..
….because I’ve been tapped to coordinate the women’s conference at next summer’s NACC. This is due less to my (considerable) administrative skills or (much less considerable) love of women’s ministry, and more to do with my status as the only woman on the 2009 Executive Committee.
Also I made the mistake of asking if anyone was planning it. The NACC started this conference-within-a-convention last year and it was apparently a big success with the ladies who attended, but its 2008 champion didn’t volunteer for another year. Understandable, but that left me and my two X chromosomes to make sure it didn’t die in ‘09.
So far, however, things are going well. We’re planning to continue the best of last year’s programming, including a special Gathering Spot for women, a full track of workshops and Bible studies, and a luncheon with Tammy Trent. (I think she does stuff with Women of Faith? I should know this.)
We’ll also offer another special tea. Last year this event was exclusively for minister’s wives—only women married to a minister could attend. I love that last year celebrated those ladies, and this year we’ll honor another distinct group—women in ministry, defined as those serving on the staff of a church or parachurch ministry. I’m looking forward to encouraging these women.
But I will need help, so if you’re reading this and already my friend, you now have fair warning that I will soon be calling and asking for favors. And if I don’t know you, but you’d like to be involved, please let me know—especially if you’re one of those gals who just naturally thinks, “You know, this would be better if we had wooden place cards with our names stenciled on them.” Seriously, if you just intuitively know how to MacGyver a frilly centerpiece from baby’s breath and some tulle—call me. I may have the chromosomes of a woman, but I’m missing that gene.
lead me on
Sorry–I’m not going to take some big controversial position regarding women leading in the church. Maybe it’s because I don’t aspire to a pastor or elder role (so I have less emotion invested in it) or maybe it’s because I’ve always experienced ample opportunities to express my gifts in the local church. Or maybe I’m just tired of the debate.
Whatever the reason, I don’t feel a need to be defensive about either “side” and I applaud Christian Standard for the two open, respectful position papers they published on the topic this week. I find areas of insight in both of them, often around the very same point.
For instance, “…we must note that women had limited involvement in Jesus’ ministry,” Joe Harvey writes in his article. “There were no women among the twelve (even though Jesus was willing to be scandalized in other ways).” That’s true, I thought. Jesus never shied away from conflict when it advanced the kingdom; there must have been a reason he selected only men.
Then I read Lana West’s paper. “Jesus chose twelve free Jewish males to represent the twelve patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel,” she writes. “The choice of the twelve indicated the importance of the new covenant being founded on the old. Gentiles and slaves were not among the select twelve, but there is no expectation that they could not serve in church leadership.”
That makes sense, too.
I’m glad CS published this and I’m glad thoughtful people are contributing two-way dialogue instead of one-way diatribe. It’s also nice to see a focus on broad Biblical principles rather than hair-splitting details; the remark by one leader I know, that a woman could direct the choir but could not turn around and lead the congregation in the same song, makes about as much sense as the church of Christ bride who positioned a piano outside the church sanctuary—but near an open window—so she could still march up the aisle to music.
Neither legalistic boundaries nor creative ways to dodge them appeal to me. Instead, I’m content to let my actions and gifts speak for themselves. Could I lead better than some men I know? Yep, and far worse than others. But in both situations my submission to their authority honors God.
“When you are invited, take the lowest place,” Jesus teaches in Luke 14, “so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’” My ministers and elders may invite me or other women to a higher place. They may not. That choice is part of their own leadership responsibility and I’m satisfied to leave it between them and God. In a culture encouraging women to take the lead–to seize the lead–perhaps my position is controversial after all.
skirting the issue
Most of these small dancers were girls, and the recital was full of feminine pageantry—pink princess outfits, butterflies with shiny wings, purple hot pants, swept-up hairdos, and lots and lots of glitter.
Feminists might object to such stereotypes, but these little girls loved every minute. “Look at my outfit,” four-year-old Avery commanded me, her eyes shining as she shimmied her hips. “My skirt is twirly.”
It’s old news, I hope, that men and women are equal in value. But while God created us equally, He also hardwired males and females very differently.
You can observe this by spending just an hour or two in a room of small children. Notice the girls cuddling dolls or pretending to cook while the boys smash trucks into piles or “shoot” each other with plastic guns. (One young mother I know banned violent toys from her home; her son responded by using his index finger as a gun to blow up the bad guys in his closet.)
These differences even show up during play with “gender-neutral” toys like puzzles or games; boys often demonstrate less conversation and more competition than their female peers.
Recognizing these tendencies doesn’t have to mean a return to rigid old-school thinking (“No son of mine will hold a doll!”). Some boys danced in the recital, of course (many of them as chickens, leaving trails of feathers behind suggestive of a large molting episode), just as many girls play sports and climb trees. Any generalizations are potentially unfair, and some should be retired completely for the physical and social growth of both sexes.
But I am suggesting we remember, and celebrate, our unique roles as male and female. Although Avery might grow up to be a lawyer, teacher, or engineer, on Saturday she just wanted to be a princess. It’s an affirmation of God’s plan, not a betrayal of feminism, to acknowledge that desire inside every woman. We deserve equal pay for equal work, but sometimes work’s more fun in a twirly skirt.
first, do no eHarmony
Neil Clark Warren must be laughing all the way to the bank. Millions of people have subscribed (at $20-$50 a month) to his online dating service, eHarmony, since its launch in 2000. In 2006, the site announced over 16,000 eHarmony couples had already married, and hundreds more hopefuls join the site each day. Users are attracted to the Christian branding (Warren initially marketed the site through Focus on the Family) and patented “personality profile” which allegedly matches you to singles with whom you share sociability, energy levels, intellect, and other characteristics.
This weekend I’m in Colorado for the wedding of one of my closest friends, who met her soon-to-be-husband online, and in the past couple of weeks I’ve reconnected with several other friends who met their spouses through online dating services. Online dating seems to have lost its stigma (although several of those friends still hesitate to tell others they met through a website), but I remain skeptical.
Time magazine recently named eHarmony one of its 5 worst websites; “Our main beef with this online dating site is its power to cause utter despair,” they wrote. I experienced more disbelief than despair; one match was most passionate about, and I quote, “Wielding the sword of truth against the powers and principalities of darkness” (yikes). Another claimed to routinely fall asleep in the shower (how is one question; why he chose to reveal that to a total stranger is another). I “talked” to a variety of others, including one I dated for several months before realizing we were actually spectacularly incompatible. Thanks, Neil Clark.
Perhaps despair IS more like it–this is who I’m most compatible with in “29 different dimensions”? What does that say about me??
Whether it’s Match.com, Yahoo Personals, or eHarmony, I’m glad my dear friends are finding love online. But I don’t plan on trying it again. Maybe it’s pride—I’d still rather tell my grandkids a meet cute story than a met online one—or maybe it’s just dating fatigue. “I’m terrible at matching my clothes,” said one of my eHarmony matches. “This is kind of a last-ditch effort at finding someone,” said a second. “I really like to give high-fives,” shared yet another. Even The Committee seems successful compared to this.
SATC
Maybe it’s because, like Carrie, I write a published column (and this blog) and spend quite a bit of time pondering life in front of my Mac. Maybe it’s because, like Carrie, I spent years of my life clutching the safety bar in a roller-coaster relationship with my own black-haired, blue-eyed, manipulative-yet-charming Mr. Big. Or maybe it’s because, like most women who watch the show, I love the clothes.
Whatever the reason, I admit it: I love Sex and the City, and I can’t wait for the movie at the end of this month.
The show earns its name–it’s filled with the raunchy and the racy–but I watch for the relationships among the four women. Yes, that sounds like the old “I read Playboy for the articles” line, but it’s true. In fact, I watch the show on network reruns (rather than DVD or online) where the more graphic language and explicit scenes have been edited out and the real power of the show—its funny, insightful writing and excellent acting—can shine.
Throughout six seasons Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha experience life as single women. They live complex lives and ask difficult questions: Do women just want to be rescued? Can you make a mistake and miss your fate? Are we getting wiser, or just older? Each episode attempts an answer, and includes more than sex, or even romantic love–the real focus is the friendship and love among these four friends.
YouTube doesn’t currently offer my favorite examples: the episode in which Miranda discovers she’s accidentally pregnant while Charlotte discovers she can’t get pregnant; the one in which each friend offers support for Carrie’s heartbreak even while celebrating Charlotte’s marriage; the truly wonderful moment when Samantha attempts to hide her breast cancer diagnosis until after Miranda’s small wedding reception, telling Miranda, “Go be with your people and we’ll talk tomorrow.” “You are my people,” Miranda says. “Now talk, and don’t leave anything out.”
So, until those are available, I leave you with this fun moment–and an encouragement to watch the edited-for-network-TV version sometime.
Actual recent comment from current student at one of our Bible colleges
When assigned a new book from the syllabus:
“I didn’t think women could write academic books.”
Jennifer Taylor
My Other Sites
