the view from her

Last week, the Strategic Monk wrote a perceptive post called Living Life Out Loud. He began by describing a conversation he’d had with someone, in which they described to him a particularly painful experience, and observed “Saying it out loud makes it more real.”

“We depend on our stories. We believe the stories we tell ourselves; we understand and take control of our lives and the world around us through our stories… Our stories are important; they express who we really are. It can be painful and difficult, and it can be an experience of great joy, to tell our story. Each time we share part of our true story it becomes more real to us.”

Telling our stories makes them real to us, and makes us real to those who hear them. Yet telling our stories requires (a) time, and (b) an engaged listener, two things increasingly hard to come by in today’s on demand, attention-deficit-disordered world.

There are two potential dangers. First, unable to find an audience for our stories, we begin to lose our place – to feel less real – as if we are fading into a shallow, transparent ghost of our true selves. Secondly, as listeners we falsely assume our smart phone multiplies our abilities – virtually allowing us to be in several places at once – when the truth is it fragments us, creating ever more diminished versions of ourselves as we multi-task. We become a culture of faded shadows and scraps brushing by one another in busy efficiency.

Someone around us has an important story they need to say out loud. We need the enrichment of fully engaging in that story. So put on a pot of coffee. Open another bottle of wine. Settle in and get comfortable. I’m listening.

Except on Friday the 13th.

Though actually that would be more along the lines of paraskevidekatriaphobia. I just didn’t want to seem neurotic.

A common argument in the Christian leadership industry for Jesus’ example in choosing a “leadership team” (and against women in leadership) is pointing to the fact that the twelve disciples were all men. Jesus clearly demonstrated by example that the leaders in this new faith – and in his leadership “structure” – were men, right? Well, they were all Jewish too, but we don’t so much require that as a condition of leadership. We don’t look at much else about them except the fact that they were men.

JR Daniel Kirk looks at the 12 (male) disciples and sees something else that’s extremely significant. A quick summary: Jesus chooses twelve men, sends them out to preach, heal, proclaim the Kingdom, and feed the 5,000. Then the discussion about “who do you say that I am” takes a turn for the worse, Peter rebukes Jesus, and Jesus calls Peter “Satan.” The disciples become preoccupied with who will be greatest in the coming kingdom. They are after all, the inner circle, concerned with their future roles in the ongoing organizational structure.

“We begin to see what they don’t get about Jesus’ ministry: the cross turns the economy of the world on its head. They have a standard of greatness that entails a certain kind of leadership and power, but Jesus wants to transform their ideas. He wants them to see greatness in the cross and in the child.”

This is where they have the “those who are considered rulers and flaunt their authority by ordering people around – but not so with you” discussion. Kirk goes on to say (emphasis mine): “In the story, the disciples do not understand what is entailed in leading the people of God. They think it is about greatness and power rather than service and death.” That should sound familiar to anyone struggling with the secular leadership strategies currently embraced by many churches.

Here’s the real problem with using the twelve as examples of leadership structure:

“According to the economy of the world, with its measures of greatness, to be the twelve is to be exemplary, in the place to lead, to exclude others from leadership, to stand close to Jesus and guard the gates of who else can draw near. And to the extent that we look to Jesus’ selection of them, and the apparent marginalization of the women, as paradigmatic for male leadership in the church, we show ourselves to be people whose minds have not yet been transformed by the very story to which we are appealing. It is only by agreeing with the disciples’ way of assessing the world that we can see their ‘insider status’ as a true insider status, to be replicated by other men in church history…

“The irony of appealing tot he boys as insiders is that in so doing we show ourselves to be adopting the boys’ understanding of power, privilege, and leadership in the kingdom. And this view is roundly rebuked by Jesus in words of dissuasion and the work of the cross.”

At the end of January, author John Piper spoke at the Desiring God conference for pastors, making a statement that has drawn quite a lot of discussion among people of faith. “God’s intention for Christianity is for it to have a ‘masculine feel.’” The good news is that the flawed thinking behind this statement has inspired many thoughtful and informed responses from men and women alike.

Wade Burleson states that Piper’s ‘Masculine Christianity’ actually emasculates.

“The image of God is both male and the female. God is no more all male to the exclusion of female than He is all Jewish to the exclusion of Gentile. To say, as Piper says, that Christianity has ‘a masculine feel’ is as silly as saying Christianity has ‘a white, anglo-saxon feel’…

“Four years ago I wrote a post warning against the growing doctrinal heresy among conservative Christians called “the eternal subordination of the Son” in order to justify the eternal subordination of women to men. The time has come for Christians, particularly Christian men, to stop remaining silent in the face of such doctrinal distortion.”

Rachel Held Evans specifically asked men to respond to Piper’s statement “with posts that celebrate femininity and affirm women in the Church,” receiving over 150 contributions. JR Daniel Kirk wrote:

“…In what is the clearest connection of God to human gender, perhaps the only clear and intentional such connection in all of scripture, it is both male and female, together, who mirror God to the world.This means that a ‘masculine’ church or a church with a ‘masculine feel’ is inherently lacking in its ability to reflect the image of God to the world.”

Jesus Creed posts thoughts by Lindsey Hankins on gendered rhetoric. Turns out what’s new is old – really old heretical thinking Christianity has been dealing with for centuries. She concludes:

“Yet the most important issue is not that Piper’s view would be misunderstood. The absolute fundamental problem would be that it would be mistakenly taken as good news. The fact of the matter is that Piper is “on to something” insofar as he is rather seamlessly capitulating to a long-standing tendency in church history. When women are intentionally excised from the biblical narrative, Piper is right, Christianity sure starts to sound masculine. What the church needs now is not by any means a “masculine feel.” The church has had this broken and un-balanced “feel” for millennia and far from producing a “flourishing [for] both men and women” it has too often been complicit in a systematic de-humanization of half its constituency.”

What’s most obvious to me is this. There are two genders on this planet. Jesus had to assume one of them when he came to earth as a human being. In a world and specifically a culture as patriarchal as the Middle East, it makes sense that he took on the male gender, in order to become a teacher, a Rabbai, to even have a voice. But answer me this: in a world that’s been patriarchal for centuries, what makes Christianity any different? Culture has a masculine feel. Business has a masculine feel. The Church has a masculine feel. FYI, the men are already “in charge.”

Maybe… besides healing and forgiving sins and having dinner with sinners and breaking the Sabbath, what made Jesus and his teaching so radical was that he actually did away with the old world’s “masculine” order. Maybe Ephesians 5:28 really did turn men on their heads – “Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies” – because it was so contrary to the prevailing culture.

In an already masculine world, Galatians 3:28 makes Christianity wildly different: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” That was especially Good News for the Gentiles, for the slaves, and for women.

Well, it’s here. Valentine’s Day, or as many singles prefer to call it – Black Tuesday. It might possibly be the most dreaded day on the entire calendar for singles without a significant other, though it’s really become rather an over-sexualized, consumer-oriented and manipulatively-hyped “holiday.” Me? I try to just to focus on the positive, and not be bitter…sweet.

For example, we’re going to buy more than 58 million pounds of chocolate. So even though I don’t have a… semi-sweetheart, I mousse just go ahead and buy some for myself. I mint also go rent a video, something like…Chocolat, and just plan to stay in, and mocha the best of it. Though it might cream like I’m missing out, I think it’s actually butter not to have to go to all that truffle.

Because let’s face it. One thing Valentine’s Day has going for it is the chocolate.

It’s true. Scientists have determined that “eating a small dessert as part of a balanced breakfast can actually help you shed unwanted pounds.” Specifically. a small piece of chocolate or chocolate cake.

“In this study, researchers split 193 clinically obese, non-diabetic adults into two groups. Men got 1,600 calories a day and women got 1,400. Half the subjects had a 300-calorie, low-carb breakfast, while the other half got 600 calories in the morning, including a small piece of chocolate cake. Halfway through the 32-week study, both groups had lost an average 33 pounds per person. But in the subsequent 16 weeks, people eating the light breakfast gained back 22 pounds each, while the cake eaters lost another 15 pounds apiece, on average.”

We’ve all heard that “breakfast is the most important meal of the day.” This gives that saying a whole new meaning.

Life is uncertain. Eat dessert first. …thing in the morning.

It’s here. The end of a year and the start of a new one. The time we make new year’s resolutions, or at least talk about them. I originally wrote this post last year, and received some really positive response, so I’m reposting it again. With one very significant update.

We all know resolutions are notoriously hard to keep. So it’s helpful when others can help us think about them differently. For example, last year Author Tim Sanders suggested making 3 lists for 2011. Stop, start, and keep. It’s simple.

I made one resolution about 4 years ago, and I’ve been making the same one every year since and it has changed my life. It’s my best resolution.

I resolved to say “Yes” more often.

Sometimes it’s easy. You want to pay for my dinner? – Yes. Other times, it’s harder. You want me to speak to a group of college kids? – (gulp) Yes.

I probably need to clarify that this is not an excuse for all the codependent Millie Martyr’s of the world to continue taking on other people’s responsibilities, or not to enforce healthy boundaries, or to otherwise be a doormat. This is saying “yes” at times when you’re tired and would ordinarily just go home. Or saying “yes” to things that are completely outside your comfort zone, or that you have little interest in, or don’t know anything about.

I warn you… it’s radical. I actually live a fairly routine life. But I’ve been to Africa and Thailand because I said yes. I’ve seen things I never would have seen, I’ve taught classes, interviewed mayors, spoken at church, served on a university presidential search committee, made unexpected connections, hosted live-streaming interviews, earned unexpected money, and met the most interesting people – all because at some point further back I said “yes” to an insignificant-at-the-time opportunity.

This year, my friend Jen Taylor wrote a post about what happened to her when she said yes.

You should try it in 2012. You only have to say one word.

Things I love about the Christmas season:
- working on my computer in the evenings by twinkly Christmas tree light.
- the smell of fresh pine
- Christmas at Eastside, my terrific job there and the incredible church family I get to serve with, eat with, hang with at 9 Christmas services.
- Peppermint Bark.
-Trader Joe’s Candy Cane Joe-Joes (at about $2.99 – considerably cheaper than the peppermint bark).
- Flannel sheets.
- Mittens, not gloves.
- The Vince Guaraldi Christmas album.
- Starbuck’s Cinnamon Dolce Latte.
- Christmas cards in the mail.
- The movie Elf. And Christmas Vacation.
- This Harry Connick Christmas album.
- Kettle Korn, when you can get it.
- In southern California, the Christmas Boat Parade.
- My own killer butter rum cake. It’s the best. Ask anyone.
- Conversations with people at the mall who would never otherwise talk to you.
- A fire in the fireplace.
- Hot chocolate with Amaretto.
- The hope inherent in Christmas, that “…All shall be well and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well…”

Earlier this week I had the pleasure of spending an afternoon with Greg Richardson, a Twitter friend, and learning a little about brewing beer. I posted my perspective on the experience here.

Greg recently posted the other side of the story, Craft Brewing for Wine Lovers.

“I got together with my friend Jan recently at a craft brewery in Orange County. Jan is a wine lover, and the first time we met was her introduction to craft brewing. I think that might have been the first time she had finished an entire pint of beer, which was something of a revelation to her. Now we have found a common goal of exploring craft brewing from the point of view of a wine lover, while researching Southern California craft breweries.”

Read more...

Yesterday I spent a rainy afternoon with someone I barely know in a local brewery. Through the marvelous connectivity of the internet (who says social media is isolating or artificial?), I met Greg Richardson, aka the Strategic Monk to learn a little more about brewing beer. He claims monasteries used to brew their own beer as a means of support. I have no idea if that’s true, knowing absolutely nothing about beer, or monasteries for that matter. He also claims beer goes back further than wine, which is pretty old considering wine is talked about a lot in the Bible.

I met Greg at a Tweet-up after the Sticky Teams conference. FYI: a “tweet-up” is when people who have only conversed via Twitter actually meet in person at a designated location. Dawn Carter, a sort of social media hub who connects people she meets to each other, introduced me to Greg. They were both very excited about something I’d never heard of: beer tasting.

I grew up Baptist in the Bible Belt, and we just never had alcohol around the house. So I was well into my adult years before I learned some of the major distinctions of wine (red grapes=red wine, white grapes=white wine…who knew?) Little by little I learned about notes and undertones and finishes. Turns out it’s much the same with beer. I tried a really dark beer with a chocolaty flavor. It was delish.

Greg is currently conducting research for his 2012 Craft Brewery Pilgrimage. You can join him in his research – drink some unusual beer, meet some interesting people – a great way to spend an afternoon.