Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Misc.’ Category

Bad Bloggers!

I was posting on a message board about this site earlier, and realized I haven’t posted anything here since last October.  Wow.

I think in many ways both Callie and I expressed what we wanted to here.  I don’t know that either of us have a desire to continue to try to understand why being a feminist is bad, or why the Patriarchy movement has gained the momentum it has.

But as a matter of faith, neither of us has reached the end of our paths.  Our stories are still being written.  Cally has embraced Orthodoxy.  And I, in an effort not to throw everything I love about Jesus out the window in frustration, have given up on Christianity.  That’s a story I should probably tell in depth, but I don’t have it in my right now.

For anyone who reads here, but doesn’t read my personal blog, I’m expecting another baby in July.  He’s managed to surprise me not only by existing, but by being diagnosed with a Neural Tube Defect called an Encepahlocele.  These are rare, and usually fatal.  But my little guy shocked everyone again by being otherwise perfectly healthy and his ‘cele is operable.  So, while things are looking good for us, I’m just not up for putting my spiritual path out there to be dissected.  Not yet, anyway.

I hope to be back soon.  And I gratefully accept prayers, good thoughts, happy dances, and anything else you want to send my little guy’s way.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Captivating Faith

Sometimes I hear something that completely captures my attention.  That’s especially true for me with music.  I hear a tune, or lyrics, and I’m overcome.  I’m inspired.  One song really hit home with me this past week, called “Captivated” by Vickie Beeching:

Your laughter it echoes like a joyous thunder
Your whisper it warms me like a summer breeze
Your anger is fiercer than the sun in its splendour
You’re close and yet full of mystery
Ever since the day that I saw Your face
Try as I may, I cannot look away, I cannot look away…

Captivated by You
I am captivated by You
May my life be one unbroken gaze
Fixed upon the beauty of Your face

Beholding is becoming, so as You fill my gaze
I become more like You and my heart is changed
Beholding is becoming, so as You fill my view
Transform me into the likeness of You

This is what I ask, for all my days
That I may, never look away, never look away…
No other could ever be as beautiful
No other could ever steal my heart away
I just can’t look away…

I want that!  I want my life to be an unbroken gaze upon the beautiful face of my Savior!  I want to continue to be totally in love with and in awe of a God who is so vast as to virtually make my brain shut down when I try to imagine Him.  And yet, at the same time, so personal that He would become a man to take away my sins, knit me together in my mother’s womb, and knows how many hairs are on my head.

I want to continue to behold and become like my God, so humble as to sit little children upon His knee.  So kind and generous that he healed the sick and soothed the tortured soul.  I want me, selfish and small, to be transformed in and by His likeness, so that where I am seen, He is known.  I want to be held in a captivating faith so strong that my heart cannot be pulled away.

Praise the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.
Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,
praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD.
Psalm 150

Read Full Post »

Clarifications

I found a comment addressed to me in another blog that I had stopped reading.  I only went back to try to figure something out, rather unrelated to the comment I found, but upon finding the comment I feel I must answer it.  The original comment can be found here.

1)You moderate comments. You change your posts. You have changed the “Our Purpose” page to reflect your new-fondness for Stacy. And have deleted all initial posts that were critical of her and her brand of ideology.

We do moderate comments.  As we’ve said, this is a personal blog and we’d like to keep it on topic and without personal attacks.  We’ve had issues in the past.  We did not change the Our Purpose page, though we certainly could.  As I said, it’s a personal blog.  I have changed the comments page to reflect the current issues coming up on the blog.

But I want to clarify, that we have not deleted any old posts.  We want to be honest about who we’ve been, who we are, and our journey to get there.  The statement that we’ve deleted posts is false.

2)You are not logical! You would never use logic in your arguments. You would just hit out at irrationally at me! You called Cindy, a well-respected Christian and theologian, a “bully.” I don’t know what names you could call me. You didn’t attack Cindy’s arguments. You attacked Cindy as a person.

Actually, I didn’t call Cindy a bully.  Jennifer/Cally said that Cindy had bullied away three people.  As for the logic issue, there’s no response to that.  It’s one person’s opinion and she’s certainly entitled to it.  Of course I disagree.  I work very hard to argue the points with people and not get personal.

3)You have changed many things on your blog without telling us – the readers and contributers why you are doing so. I know that your past convictions and disapproval of Stacy http://whitewashedfeminist.com/2008/07/31/doug-phillips-lydia-sherman-jenny-chancey-and-stacy-macdonald-reject-the-virgin-mary/ must clash with your new friendship with Stacy.  But honesty is appreciated. Just like Stacy you are also making changes on your blog to suit your conveniences. That shows you prefer increasing the popularity of ur blog and its acceptability among the hyper-pat crowd – instead of a devotion to the truth.

I didn’t write that post.  Laura Croft did.  When the contributors here write, they speak for themselves, not everyone.  Laura and NormalMiddle left for their own reasons.  NormalMiddle got busy with her family, and Laura felt like she’d said all she needed to say.

While the title of that post always made me cringe, I understood the point of it.  I still do.    My concerns about Patriarchy haven’t changed, I’m just willing to listen to the other side clarify their views. The idea that I don’t care about the truth is simply not true.  Nor have I ever sought acceptance with the hyper-pat crowd.

*edited to add* By the way, doesn’t it seem that if we were trying to curry favor with the Patriarchal or hyperpatriarchal (I make a distinction) crowd, we would delete a post like that?  I mean, if we were deleting posts, one would think that might be first on the chopping block.  So, either our current views aren’t in line with our previous views (I, actually think they are but that we’re learning that not all Patriachalists are Patriocentrists) and we shouldn’t grow, learn and change, or we’ve deleted posts to make it more favorable to the Patriarchal crowd.  I don’t see how we can do both.

The few changes made to our blog were personal changes.  We haven’t done it for popularity.  In fact we’re no more popular than we ever were.  I’d also like to point out that I think it’s a dangerous argument to speculate as to the motives of someone else and state them as fact.  One can think we made the changes for one reason or another, but they can’t know.  To insist my motives were to be dishonest, or to seek favor with men, is a very personal attack against my character.

We change things on our blog as our ideas change, though we’ve left all posts intact.  I think it’s fair to allow us to grow and learn as Christian women.  That’s not being dishonest.

4)I remember all your outspoken remarks against Lydia Sherman, Stacy McDonald and Jennie Chancey. I am not likely to forget that WWF was once very eager to make catty remarks against this crowd. If you search the archives, you can still find Cally and Anne’s remarks on Stacy. Cindy, Karen or Corrie have always stuck to attacking their ideology and actions – they have never made catty remarks as to how some people were snobs, who would even reject the Virgin Mary.

I’m not sure I’ve made a lot of catty remarks, but if I have, I apologize.  I felt that I tried very hard to interact with ideas, though I admit I may have failed from time to time.  But I think maybe you didn’t read that Virgin Mary post very well (which, again, to be clear, I didn’t write), it wasn’t about people being snobs as much as thinking that the Patriarchy movement didn’t have much room for those of us who come to the faith as lost children and have a past.  I still think that’s true of some on the extreme side.  I have written a post about an article Jennie Chancey wrote, and I still stand by it.  As I do my Letter to Lady Lydia.  Both of those dealt with ideas and teachings, not personal character.

5)You are not mature enough to handle arguments. You would only resort to name-calling when you are cornered in arguments.

I really haven’t.

If you are sincere in wanting to discuss things, you can start by apologising to Cindy for calling her a “bully.” It was unwarranted and unnecessary.

I didn’t call her a bully, so I can’t apologize for it.  Sorry.

Then next you can put an explanation on your blog as to why you edited and made changes on your blog.

Done.

Unless you are honest and upfront, I don’t want to be dicussing anything with you and getting myself into a cat fight.

Theological dicussions interest me, but not below-the-belt name-calling tactics.

Ditto!  Of course, I also prefer discussing things with people who aren’t openly hostile to me, but that’s just a personal preference.

Bless anyone who got through that.  I don’t particularly feel like answering to this poster or anyone else, but there were some errors in the comment and I really wanted to clarify them for anyone who might think we’re being devious in some way.

Read Full Post »

Because I made the offer at another blog, I thought I’d make an actual thread where people could ask questions of Jennifer and me.  We’re both somewhat outspoken (me more than Jennifer), and welcome the chance to clarify our thoughts for anyone sincerely interested in knowing what they are.

So here’s your chance.  Comments will remain moderated, please see our comment policy.  We don’t filter comments just for disagreeing with us.

Read Full Post »

Christian Symbolism

I went back and read through the blog post that accused Roman Catholicism of using Pagan symbolism, and thought that the ideas presented deserved a bit more treatment. Especially to show how the little research was done by the author.

The first picture we are shown is of a relief depicting the priests of Dagon, a fish god of some sort. After the intial image, we are shown another, also depicting a priest dressed as a fish. After these two images, we are shown Cybele, a goddess with a mitre on her head and a sunburst symbolism in the artwork depicting her. Then we are asked to compare it to an image of the Pope, seen here.

The picture of the Pope is to point out that his hat is a mitre, something worn in ancient depictions of the god Dagon, and the goddess Cybele. She also points out that there is a sunburst type symbol on the mitre which is also a symbol used in ancient paganism. The word mitre comes from an ancient Greek word mitra and meant (among other things) diadem. Now the Pope is not the first to wear a kind of a diadem as a symbol of their status. The priests of God were commanded to do so in the Old Testament:

For Aaron and his sons, they made tunics of fine linen—the work of a weaver- and the turban of fine linen, the linen headbands and the undergarments of finely twisted linen. The sash was of finely twisted linen and blue, purple and scarlet yarn—the work of an embroiderer—as the LORD commanded Moses.

They made the plate, the sacred diadem, out of pure gold and engraved on it, like an inscription on a seal: HOLY TO THE LORD. Then they fastened a blue cord to it to attach it to the turban, as the LORD commanded Moses. Exodus 39:27-31

So, if wearing a diadem was something that the Jewish priests did, wouldn’t it be an equally valid comparison to compare the Catholic bishop or Pope’s mitre to the Priests of the Old Testament? I find it highly doubtful that God, who worked so hard to show the difference between the Israelites and surrounding pagans, commanded his priests to dress like them. The modern mitre has developed over many years and has a long tradition. It’s not a distinctly pagan symbol.

The sunburst symbol can be found throughout ancient paganism. That is true. But what does it mean as a Christian? When we read through the Bible we hear Christ described as light:

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” John 8:12

If we see a sunburst or a light burst pattern symbol as a Christian, it is symbolic of Christ. The Light of the World, shining forth to lead us to the Father. I don’t think a strong case can be made that it’s symbolizing the sun god. Instead it symbolizes the Son God. I do wonder why she didn’t attack the fish symbolism in Christianity after looking at those pictures of Dagon’s priests.

Another symbol tackled by the blog post author is in regards to the distinct crucifix on the staff that the Pope carries with him. I’m surprised she didn’t start with the upside down cross on the back of the Pope’s chair. After all, what’s so overtly satanic as an upside down cross, right? But, of course, had she done even the tiniest bit of research she would have learned that the upside down cross was first a Christian symbol. The Pope is considered to be the successor to St. Peter, who was crucified upside down. The upside down cross reminds us of Peter’s humility and death. In fact, the upside down cross has long been a symbol used by Christians to honor the martyrs who considered themselves unworthy to die as our Savior did.

But back to the Pope’s crucifix! It is, of course, nothing more than an artist’s rendition of the crucifixion. The drooping wood meant to show the weight of Christ’s suffering. I looked into the claims that the bent cross was used in the sixth century as a Satanic symbol, but could find nothing more that multiple sources pointing to one source and one person who doesn’t back up that assertion with any real evidence. Still, even if we accept for a moment that it was true and that satanists corrupted the symbol of Christ on the Cross for their own purposes, how does that preclude us from taking back our own symbolism?

The author then moves to the pinecone on the staff of the Pope, as she points out, the pinecone is an ancient symbol of fertility. As I pointed out in my last post, however, we Christians are free to use all aspects of nature in our artwork and symbolism, as a reflection of God’s beauty in His creation. Of course, she should probably be made aware that it’s not actually a pine cone on the staff, but rocks. They’re the rocks at the base of the cross at Golgotha.

She also points to various sunburst symbols in Catholicism, which I’ve covered, and then shows us a picture of St. Peter where he looks highly reminiscent of an ancient statue of Jupiter. She’s right, it really does look like an ancient Greek or Roman statue of a God. The sunburst, of course, is really a halo, a symbol of his status as a Saint. A Saint would certainly be one who would shine God’s light into the world, as we are told to do:

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:14-16

And I think it’s fair to take into account the heavy influence of ancient Greek and Roman art on artists through many generations.

Our art and symbolism is important. But it is also important to share the truth about them, and not spread a spirit of fear amongst fellow Christians. Whether or not we agree on the Eucharist, we who call Christ “Savior” and can affirm the Gospel laid out in Scripture are all Christians.

Read Full Post »