:: Inside My Head :: Pillow Talk :: Herstory :: Voices & Heralds :: Amaturefile :: U Speak :: Headless Chest :: Home ::
Dust And Eldredge
Forgive me, I've not been tending to business. Let us finish with Mr. Eldredge and move on to more interesting topics.
Adventure -
Eldredge says men want it and women want to share it.
I say we all long for adventure (and other really important things like peace, love, etc...) and the really big adventure is shared anyway, so...
Battles -
Eldredge says only men long for battles and then mixes up worldly violence and godly struggle.
I say Eldredge has never met me, my friends or many of you who read this. We long to set things right and we know that may take "battles", but we do not long for violence - it is Shalom that beckons us.
To be fought for -
Eldredge says women long to be "fought for."
I say once again that Eldredge divides the sexes where there is no division. Community is a place were all are called to serve - or "fight for" - each other. What Eldredge is supporting is female dependency on males - a one way street that is dangerous and unhealthy for all involved. We can talk more about this sickly idea in the future...
Beauty -
Eldredge says men want to rescue a beauty.
Do you remember Ciaphus? The high priest who was part of the conspiracy to kill Jesus? He said, "It is better that one man die, than that a whole people should parish." He didn't mean what he said, but what he said was true. Same with Eldredge - he didn't mean what he said, but what he says here is true.
Hey men! We would love for you to come rescue beauty! We live in a world where beauty is constantly consumed - we see a lovely pond in a forest, we buy it, bulldoze half the forest, build a mansion and gaze out our windows at our pond and our forest for years - or until we sell it. We consume the female body - and now the male body is up for consumption as well. We see beauty and our first thought is usually something like, "can I have that?", "I want that", etc...
I would love for a man to come along and stand by my side and "battle" - throw down the gauntlet - draw a line in the sand and insist - of himself and others - that my beauty is not for consumption. Find me that man, and I will show you a man who can change tides and history.
Yes men, battle on to rescue beauty from this dark lie, for I and many others would love a safe place away from "eyeball rape."
Eldredge says that women want a beauty to unveil.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Women are constantly bombarded with the lie that their beauty exist for the pleasure of men - and Eldredge perpetuates this lie.
There is more to Eldredge but ultimately I find him unconvincing - as many before me have. This issues raised are good springboards for discussion - and discuss we will - but, quite frankly, Eldredge bores me. So now I dust my hands and look forward to more interesting things...
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/30/2004 12:40:23 AM | (4) comments
Chivalry
Saw this on MSM - realized I wasn't crazy - or at least I wasn't the only crazy...
No full-fledged support of the article from me, just a nod in that direction.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/30/2004 12:05:23 AM | (0) comments
Savannah
Bending to make my acquaintance,
And waving their lacey, green kerchiefs
They smile and welcome me.
This genteel greeting from Southern ladies...
I nod and touch my ball cap.
Hello sun! Bright sun, warm sun!
Warm, white sand and wet, salty air!
Greetings to you, regal bird!
You dip your wing and arc away...
I blink and trace the troughs.
And now I find myself in you,
Warm and salty, pulling, pushing,
Keeper of time's comings and goings...
You cover me and then rush on...
I wait and feel you move.
Ogeechee and formosa,
Talahi and magnolia,
Land of scars,
And place of grace,
I have met you...
Face to face.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/26/2004 10:22:09 AM | (0) comments
Turtle Man, The Manly Man...
I've been working through John Eldredge's book "Wild at Heart", and yes I want to push through and finish the discussion, at least to cover the last couple of desires in our "generically gendered hearts", but I must pause a moment and tell you something.
This male/female stuff has been a lens through which I have been viewing the world recently - creating several little spin-offs that I haven't shared as of yet. Today though, I must tell you one.
Recently brought up in conversation was the new movie, "Troy", in which, apparently, Brad Pitt bares his butt for all. Upon discovering this, I made a sarcastic comment about how I felt compelled to run out and see the movie. Then to clarify, I followed the comment up with, "just kiddin'." I was immediately challenged to "be real." "Come on, Headless..." Didn't I really want to see Brad Pitt's butt?
No, I really don't. Pardon the pun, but I don't give a "rat's ass" about Brad Pitt's butt. (This, incidentally, could spur a long ramble about butts and what they do, but I'll spare you.) So what do I find attractive in men? How about this...
The tall, skinny guy with the brown, tangled mop of curls who pulled his car over to the side of the road and stopped traffic both ways in order to shoo a large turtle across the road to safety. Once the mission was accomplished, he trotted back to his car. As he passed me, he looked right into my eyes and threw me this wry, little smile, as if to say, "yeah, go on and laugh at me, I'll even laugh along...but I did what I thought was right and I'll do it again tomorrow."
Turtle Man, whoever you are, you give me hope for all of us.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/22/2004 01:03:39 PM | (0) comments
And Wrong...
"Aggression is part of the masculine design...if we believe that man is made in the image of God, the we would do well to remember that 'the Lord is a warrior'...little girls do not invent games where large numbers of people die, where bloodshed is a prerequisite for having fun...a boy wants to attack something...they grow bored of games that have no element of danger or competition or bloodshed..."No one is killed?" they ask, incredulous...the boy is a warrior...like it or not, there is something fierce in the heart of every man" (Eldredge, p.9-11).
Wow. Is he kidding?
Listen, we are all called to battle against lies and darkness. We are all called to defend the widow, the orphan and the stranger in our midst. This world has fallen out of joint with God's original intentions and as people who seek SHALOM - true peace -which as John West has said, does not simply mean the absence of war but the presence of God, then every last one of us is called to "battle". But let us remember, "we battle not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities..."
The moment we "enjoy" bloodshed and games where "large numbers of people die" is the moment we have passed from the Kingdom of God to the kingdom of darkness. It is the enemy that seeks to "kill, steal and destroy", yet Eldredge seems to encourage war and bloodshed and even goes on to say that the "receipe for fun" when it comes to boys is to "add to any activity...a dash of destruction, and you've got yourself a winner."
Now, what Eldredge did well in the last post, has come back to bite him "in the arse", if you will. Before he speaks to the culture. Now actually promotes the culture. (Yes, I know those darned soft-bellied liberals are trying to take over our country but...) He's completely enmeshed in "cowboys and indians" and thinks that this is the imago Dei.
Eldredge mixes worldly, cultural and even, dare I say, evil(?) aspects of violence into God's redemtive work. Battles? Yes. But enjoying bloodshed and destruction - he must be kidding, right?
(Here we should have discussion about God and Old Testament descriptions of him as a "warrior", but it would take us on a tangent...if you feel cheated, well...I'm tired today, maybe tomorrow...)
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/21/2004 09:29:37 AM | (0) comments
What Eldredge Does Right
Not everything in the book "Wild at Heart" should be thrown out the window. Yes, Eldredge starts (and stays) with a flawed premise on gender (among other things). His flawed premise, to recap, is simply that "there is a masculine heart and a feminine heart." If you read the essay on the post "More Clarity", you will find a great discussion on this issue.
I suggest that each of us are made in the image of God (as opposed to women as half of the image of God and men as the other half). In other words, there is a commonality in humanity. Sex (as well as culture, athletic ability, intelligence, whatever) is an element of a holistic person, but not a defining or dividing element.
The Genesis 2 account of the woman being formed out of Adam's rib stands over and against popular thought of the day (particularly of the Greeks later on) that women were not the same creatures as men - in other words, men are to women as fish are to birds. Genesis, on the otherhand, says there is one humanity - made of one substance, not two humanities made of two different substances. (Incidentally, notice the similarity of this to the Trinity - one substance, three persons.)
Now, once Eldredge has divided humanity, he shares with us the three different desires of men and women - which means all men have a certain set of desires and all women have another set of desires. They are...
The Desires of a Man's Heart
1) An adventure to live.
2) A battle to fight.
3) A beauty to rescue.
The Desires of a Woman's Heart
1) An adventure to share.
2) To be fought for.
3) A beauty to unveil.
My first thought when I look at the #1 desires of the hearts of men and women, is that perhaps all the women should get together and share an adventure and let the men go on their lonely way, since it seems only the women want to share! My second thought is I wonder if first century Christians who were being fed to lions would have said the #1 desire of their heart was adventure - perhaps they would have said peace?
Ok, but here's what Eldredge does right. He speaks to our culture - and he's right in the context of this culture. We long for adventure because we spend most of our lives in front of the TV! So then the question becomes, is there a universal human desire that culturally becomes the desire for adventure here in the West? This is the question I put to you...comment and let me know!
As a final note, Eldredge tries to make a distinction between men and women by emphasizing that women want to share an adventure, but really this mostly just falls flat. Sharing is a two-way street. I think this is relatively obvious, so let's not beat a dead horse.
But comment! Please do! Tell me what universal desire humans have that is translated into our culture as a desire for adventure!
And as for the other desires, we will continue our discussion in the days ahead.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/19/2004 12:20:02 PM | (1) comments
Kissy-Kissy!
I went to the store the other day to buy soap for my face. Yes, I go to the expensive, fancy skin care place in the mall - don't hold it against me! For the record, that's the only time I go to the mall...
Ok, well, as I was discussing my face with this very nice sales lady, she pointed out a product that "exfoliates". It's called "7-Day Scrub." It's gritty and feels like sand, but you can use it on your face 7 days a week (well, sign me up!).
As she was trying to sell me this product, she reminded me not to use it around my eyes - can you imagine rubbing sand into your eyes 7 days a week? Come on, lady! What do you take me for?!
Another area that this 7-Day Scrub has an effect on is your lips. You should avoid rubbing it on your lips UNLESS you want to "plump up your lips". That's what she said. You can scrub your lips with sand and plump them up - or maybe bloody them! Anyway, she told me I didn't need to do that because, she said, "you have nice lips!"
Smmmoooch! Kissy-kissy! SMACK!!
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/19/2004 11:02:22 AM | (0) comments
More Clarity...
Here's a great (and amusing) critique of Eldredge's book, "Wild at Heart". Thanks to Kate (see May 5th comments)!!
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/16/2004 12:56:27 AM | (0) comments
Charcoal And Pencil
This is the fourth post of a series that began May 11. To begin at the very beginning (a very good place to start), scroll to May 11 and read "On To John", then "Hello God? Is AnyBODY Out There?", then "A Rather Dry Ending..."
I've agonized over this post - I feel like I'm painting a picture, but each stroke is so offensive or odd that to watch it being painted will take away from the ability to appreciate the whole.
I have an idea I want to share with you. It is made of many strokes. But today I'll just pick up the charcoal or maybe even a pencil and sketch...
Here is the background.
1) As a society (church society and folks who grew up around it, which is just about everybody), we generally devalue the physical. We tend to think we are inside our bodies instead of being our bodies. This tendency comes from Greek Platonic ideas that seeped into Christianity with Augustine, Aquinas and friends. Credit for this idea goes to Dr. Robert Rapa (whom I hope will soon have a link here!), N.T. Wright's book, "What Saint Paul Really Said" and the Human Puzzler. From a philosophical perspective (in relation to Eldredge), see also Steve's remarks in the Comment Section of my post entitled, "Hello God? Is AnyBODY Out There?"
2) At the same time we devalue our physical nature, we inherently sense that our sexuality (femininity/masculinity) is intergral to who we are.
In the context of the above background, here is the idea.
1) We are relational beings.
2) As such, we long to be known, accepted and valued.
3) Yet how are we to know, accept and value each other fully - including sexuality?
4) No society can survive in chaos, therefore societies do not promote chaos. Instead they promote order.
5) If people (universal) valued each other's sexuality by having sex with everyone, this would create massive chaos - socially and spiritually and a million other ways as well.
6) Yet if we deny our sexuality we cannot be fully known.
7) "Damned if we do, damned if we don't."
10) So...
11) Societies create "methods" or "paths" for the sexes to recognize and value each other as a society. Marriage is, among many things, a method of appreciating sexuality, but as a partnership of two, not as a society. I am not talking about marriage here. I am talking about, for example, in our society, we recognize masculinity and femininity by...
11A) Opening doors for women. / Allowing the door to be open.
11B) Carrying luggage and other heavy things for women. / Allowing men to carry luggage and other heavy things.
11C) Pulling out the chair for women. / Allowing the chair to be pulled out and then sitting in the chair.
12) These (and other examples as well) are socially constructed. They are not innate to the sexes. In other words, I am female and yes, I have the ability to open a door, but I allow the door to be open for me as a method of appreciating masculinity and being appreciated as female.
13) I'm sure somewhere there must have been a society that existed without doors to open, but unlikely were there ever societies that did not create methods of recognizing and affirming femininity and masculinity. In other words, societies need to create "safe" methods of recognizing sexuality(or else we either revert to promiscuity, androgony or oppression).
14) Radical changes have occurred in recent history that have caused a massive societal / cultural shift. These changes are (among other things)-
14A) The education of women.
14B) "Equal pay for equal work" (well, sorta) plus anti-discrimination laws which equals the ability of women to become independent (as opposed to being dependent on father or husband).
14C) Popular access to relativly effective birth control.
15) All three of these, in a word, equal this - POWER. Women have more power today than they have ever had in all of history.
16) This is not "bad". It simply is. Our response to this change can be "bad"...or it can be "good."
17) I cannot think of one way (please help me if you can) that femininity can express appreciation for masculinity actively (note that 11A-C only include responses to masculine initiative) with the possible exception of cheerleading - and the obvious exception of being a good housewife, except we're not talking about marriage, we're talking society as a whole. In other words, all the "methods" I can think of involve first a man's initiative and then a response from women.
18) The "New Femininity" (which is still defining itself) is not comfortable with being "passive responders" either all of the time or some of the time - depending on the degree of liberalism (which is a word that means nothing really, but whatever...).
19) Therefore, masculinity feels rejected, unappreciated, devalued because women are no longer conforming to the old methods. Men open the door and women say, "I can get it" - hear: your masculinity is unimportant to me.
20) And thus, men like Eldredge write books, in which I think, he does two things wrong (at least two).
20A) The first is he assumes the cultural shift is "bad" instead of understanding it as neutral.
20B) He confuses what was (and still is) the "working out" of innately human needs by men and women with "innate soul gender" (Remember? "There is a masculine heart and a feminine heart.")
21) But, if we really want to solve the problem, we probably need to create new methods of appreciating sexuality (while keeping some of the old too) that reflect the changing femininity (and masculinity), AND
22) Begin considering what it means to be "holistic" - your body IS you, AND...
23) Many other things, not the least of which is to pray, cause we need some help down here!
More to come, but let's stop there for now.
Eh tu?
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/15/2004 07:39:41 PM | (0) comments
Smarty Pants!
Yes.
And yes he will.
Preakness 129
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/15/2004 07:22:56 PM | (0) comments
Are You Smart?
I'm not. If I was, I surely wouldn't write down my picks for the Preakness. As I said before, only a fool...
So, here I go again on my own!
I admit I'm too emotional now. I want Smarty Jones to win it all. But here's my best attempt at an unemotional Top Three...
1) Smarty Jones
2) Rock Hard Ten
3) Imperialism
I'm crazy for leaving Lion Heart out of this top three. I did that last time too, so maybe you don't want to believe me. I'm making that choice because I've heard the track is a little deep today, which will wear down speed, which means Lion Heart.
Borrego ought to redeem himself today, but I'm thinking he won't get around Imperialism. Eddington is an unknown to me, but I don't think he'll get up there. So the fourth horse is Lion Heart, then Borrego, then the rest just come galloping home.
And that's all from this fool.
Come on Smarty!!!
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/15/2004 05:28:14 PM | (0) comments
A Rather Dry Ending To Part 1
This is the third installment in a discussion over the book, "Wild at Heart" by John Eldredge - to begin at the beginning, scroll down to the May 11th entry, "On To John".
I have finished reading "Wild at Heart." Actually, I skimmed the last of the book, but enough to get the point. I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves, but I just want it to be known that Eldredge does some things really well - namely, speaks to our culture. And that's not a bad thing. We will discuss this soon...
But as for our discussion concerning the flawed gender premise Eldredge uses - we've discussed the first and second parts of the quote on page 8 of "Wild at Heart." We have said (1) Eldredge divides the sexes into pieces of the imago dei while the biblical author unites the sexes under the one image of God (2) Eldredge denies God has physical attributes, but we know that Jesus did and may still have - furthermore, we've stated that it may be possible that other members of the Trinity have physical attributes, but this is something we, at this point, cannot determine.
From this point, Eldredge says, "God doesn't make generic people, he makes something very distinct - a man or a woman." He's right. God doesn't make generic people, he makes you, and you, and you, and you, and me, and Tony and Tim and Suzy and Jane... God doesn't make generic people at all. Eldredge shoots himself in the foot here by stating that God doesn't make generic people, and then proceeds to tell us how God makes two types of generic people. I suppose there's more that can be said, but really, what's the point?
The next statement by Eldredge is his conclusion, which is, "there is a masculine heart and a feminine heart, which in their own ways reflect or portray to the world God's heart." This statement is augmented by an early statement in the passage. That statement is, "gender simply must be at the level of the soul, in the deep and everlasting places within us." Both of these statements make for Eldredge's conclusion on the gender debate. However, as we have examined the passage, these conclusions simply cannot be drawn. His argument is not sound.
Does that make the conclusion false? Not necessarily. I believe it's false and I've never had anyone make a good case to the contrary, but I am open. If anyone wants to make a better argument than Eldredge's argument about the existence of a "masculine heart" and a "feminine heart", then I am all ears.
In the next post, I will lay out my beliefs about masculinity and femininity and some interesting stuff about appreciating the sexes (I think so, anyway). I'm very excited about that post, because I think it sheds quite a bit of light on the whole issue and because I think it will open up a whole new and exciting discussion.
This post has been a little dry, but the next one will be LOTS of fun!
Until then, I remain arrogantly...
"Changing the world, one woman at a time!"
(just kidding)
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/13/2004 08:34:43 AM | (0) comments
Hello, God? Is Any BODY Out There?
If you are just joining, this is the second installment of a series of thoughts concerning John Eldridge's book, "Wild at Heart." To begin with the first discussion, scroll down to the May 11 post entitled "On To John."
The previous post I made on the book, "Wild at Heart" was intended to begin a discussion over the fundamental premise used to support the role of the genders as per Mr. Eldridge. I noted that he used the conjunction "or" when discussing men and women, while the biblical account uses the word "and." My intention in pointing this out is to show that Eldridge is creating a dichotomy between the sexes, while the author of Genesis is creating unity.
From this point, Eldridge goes forward with the assumption that God divided his image in half and put the two pieces into the two different sexes. I am suggesting this is not the case. Instead, I would argue that the author of Genesis is looking across the sea of humanity and saying, "Humanity - every last one of us - is made in his image."
What it means to be made in the image of God is something more to be experienced and less to be spoken, but even so, I am contending that Eldridge makes a fundamental mistake when he suggest that Genesis divides God's image into male and female. Instead, Genesis unites the sexes as both made in the one image of God.
As a side note, I have often heard people discuss how the man is like the sun and the woman like the moon (Eldridge does this later in the book). They often draw this from Genesis 1 as well. But look closely at the pattern of the biblical author. God divides the day and the night, land and the sea, sky above and the sky below. He divides the moon and sun, yes, that is true. But on the sixth day, he does not divide the woman and the man. Instead he divides the livestock and the humans. It does not correspond to say that men are like the sun and women are like the moon. John Milton messed that up in Paradise Lost, but the author of Genesis does not.
But alas, I was hoping to move on to the next part of the discussion without making this an incredibly long post. Too late, huh?
I'll just briefly sketch out this next part. I know that it will not be complete. Feel free to disagree or agree and flesh it out.
The next part of Eldridge is the following statement. "Now we know God doesn't have a body so the uniqueness can't be physical (p.8). This statement is utterly fascinating to me. I'm slightly blown away that this book sold over 1 million copies and no one stop and said, "Did John Eldridge just deny the deity of the incarnate Christ?" Whether he meant to or not, that is, in fact, just what he did.
Not only did Jesus have a physical body before the cross, but he had some kind of physical body after the cross. He ate and was touched (at least he offered). Yes, he also did some weird things like just show up in locked rooms and things like that - clearly we don't understand his risen physical body, but he had one. I suppose you could assume that his physical body fell off like the rocket boosters on the space shuttle when he went to heaven... If you'd been watching you would have seen a rag doll body falling from the sky - don't worry! It's not Jesus, it's just his physical body! My friends, this is gnosticism.
I know someone out there is thinking of the verses in John 4, where Jesus says God is spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. There are really smart people in this world who have figured out really interesting things about the word spirit. I won't go into it all now (mostly because I don't understand it all). For now, suffice it to say, that we also are spirit, but not to the exclusion of our physical bodies.
Am I saying God has a physical body? Well, Jesus does. What about the other members of the Trinity? Who knows.
The point of all of this is that Eldridge starts by dividing the sexes, while the author of Genesis unites them. Then Eldridge claims that God isn't physical, but we know that at least part of God is, and who knows about the other parts.
Where I am I going next?! :-)
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/11/2004 08:32:09 PM | (0) comments
On To John
I picked up John Eldridge's book "Wild at Heart" this morning and began reading. Originally, I was going to read the entire book before posting anything on it, but I can see after reading five chapters that he is going to carry his flawed premise on gender throughout the whole of the book. So, I've decided to begin the discussion, but before I do, I would like to lay out some basic groundwork.
I will be looking at this book through the lens of gender-relations. This is not to the complete exclusion of other lenses, but please do not fault me for skipping an occasional issue or theme that is less related to sex and gender.
Furthermore, I want to congratulate Mr. Eldridge for eloquently arguing that people need - and not just need - but were made for adventure. I have no significant arguments with him on this point. I will take issue with his ideal roles each gender should play in an adventure, but overall, I agree we need adventure, but we mostly just watch TV.
Finally, I will be posting in small segments of arguments as opposed to writing one large post. The reason for this is that it makes my blog look a lot less daunting, but more importantly, it gives everyone else opportunity to comment along the way. I do have an outline in my head of where I want to go with this, but I am opening it up as a conversation, which means you, the reader/commenter can change the direction in which we are going.
Now we begin.
The basic theme of the book as seen through the gender lens is something like this. The desires of the hearts of men and women are different, and if we would just understand this point, we'd all be a lot more happy.
There are a ton of things that fly in my face as somewhat offensive, more cultural than Christian half-truths, such as the belief that "getting what I want will make me happy" instead of "giving what others need will give me joy." Yes, there is truth in the idea that our heart desires may point us to our true selves, and there is truth in saying that God transforms our desires, but Eldridge does not balance his book - he only offers the "feel-good" side of the truth. At least this is the case up until chapter five.
But I digress. The first question of the gender issue is always a question of origin. Is gender innate or is it a product? Eldridge claims he can bypass the entire argument by looking at the creation account in Genesis. He says,
Men and women are made in the image of God as men or as women. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). Now we know God doesn't have a body, so the uniqueness can't be at physical. Gender simply must be at the level of the soul, in the deep and everlasting places within us. God doesn't make generic people, he makes something very distinct - a man or a woman. In other words, there is a masculine heart and a feminine heart, which in their own ways reflect or portray to the world God's heart (p.8).
It will take us a few posts to unpack this paragraph, but let's start at the beginning (a very good place to start!). Eldridge uses the conjunction "or" in his opening sentence - "as men or as women", and then backs up his statement by quoting Genesis 1. But see how the author of Genesis uses a different conjunction - "and".
The conjunction "or" takes two things and puts them in two different boats, so to speak. The conjunction "and" does the opposite. "And" takes two things and puts them in the same boat.
Eldridge's version of Genesis 1 goes something like this - "God made people in his image and either you are a man or a woman." Yet take a look at the whole of Genesis 1. It is poetry itself, and the crowning moment comes with the repetition of the most amazing reality - we are made in God's image. It seems to sadly miss the point to think here, at the crescendo of this poetry, the Genesis author feels the need to stop and point out to his readers that either they are men or women. Why, at the climax of this unfolding drama, does he or she insert this well-known and rather mundane fact? I would assert that the author does not.
Instead, the author uses the conjunction "and". Looking across the spectrum of humanity, Genesis 1 tells us the amazingly good news - that all of us were made in the image of God! That all of us reflect the one who made us - we have value - we mean something! This stands as such due to the conjunction "and" - men and women were made in the image of God. That, my friends, is a crescendo, a climax worthy of the 26 verses that come before.
Next installment..."Hello, God? Is Any BODY out there?"
1ch j19
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/11/2004 10:59:21 AM | (0) comments
Comments?
So, apparently my comments section has not been working. For those of you who have been trying to comment, I'm very sorry! I think they are working today...let me know if they're not!
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/11/2004 10:55:16 AM | (0) comments
Divorced From Myself, Part III
When I was young, I played with wild abandon. I hung upside down from monkey bars and did "no-handed backflips with a twist" off them. I climbed trees. I made "ramps" and tried to make the longest "skid marks" with my bike. I ran through the woods and jumped small gullies...
At school I was always either the team captain or one of the first kids picked for games. I was smart, adventuresome, happy and carefree.
And then it happened. In the fourth grade, all the girls decided it was no longer "cool" to play. They all stood around under the awnings in little circles. I have no idea what they talked about, because I never stood with them, but I know they carefully hid their Teen Magazines from the adults.
When it finally happened to me - the day I "became a woman" - I died. I remember it as the saddest day of my life. Gone was the carefree girl - strong and courageous - and in her place was now to grow a "woman."
Looking back, I see it all so clearly. That was the day I became divorced from my body - from my self. No longer did my body belong to me. Instead, it belong to the following.
1)Society at large.
2)Boys in general.
3)My "future husband" in particular.
How many hours and days and weeks past, while I lay on my bed, watching shadows move across my bedroom? I only lived in my mind. My body had no meaning to me anymore. And it was there, on my bed, that I discovered another reason to live. Not for society. Not for boys. Not for some "future husband", but for God and his purposes - to live in his service. To that I gave myself...and have given myself.
Several months ago, at age 29, I sat on my couch, startled and somewhat dazed at this jarring realization - my body is my own.
I just sat there on the couch, saying it over and again, tasting the phrase in my mouth, "my body is my own", putting different emphasis on different words...stunning. It was like finding myself married to someone I had forgotten about.
Today as I run on a treadmill, watching CNN rehash the abuse of Iraqi POW's, I find my mind wandering. All of the years I ran and played sports, I never really felt my body. Occasionally, I would feel the pain of a cramp, but I remember no other pains. Today, I feel my feet as they hit the track. I feel my calves tightening up and the slight pain that it brings. As I move into the runner's form I thought I had long forgotten, I feel my arms pull myself forward. I feel the power in my quads...I am overcome...and from deep within me, these words push past my lips, "I want my body back."
"I want my body back!"
Suddenly I realize what pro-choice women are talking about when they say, "it's my body." I used to think they were talking about the fetus, now I know that's not what they're saying. They're tired of their own bodies belonging to others - to be directed and controlled. They're tired of this consumer society consuming female bodies. I understand them, after all these years, I understand you, Nicole.
I'm taking my body back. It does not belong to anyone else. It is not for or to be consumed by anyone. And someday, if I am called upon to sacrifice, then I will lay it down, but in that moment, it will be a choice I make in love, not in apathy.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/10/2004 02:18:44 PM | (0) comments
Divorced From Myself, Part II
Though I am not prone to separations of heart and head or of divisions of love (see previous post), there are other "schisms of self" that have divorced me internally. One of the most powerful schisms I've experienced was separation of soul and body.
It seems to me both society and church have, wittingly or not so, lent a hand to this type of schism. The church has a tendency to see the world as "physical" and "spiritual" - which is worked out in many ways, but particularly in the belief that "we are inside our bodies." I've mentioned this before, but this belief is more Greek than Hebrew, which again, doesn't make it bad, just not necessarily the "gospel truth."
Add to this the consumption of our bodies by society - women's bodies as well as men's bodies these days - and we slowly schism between body and soul. I have never known one "beautiful" person - as society defines it - that hasn't had to spend hours maintaining and enhancing their beauty. And for all their effort, they rarely have time to create depth of soul.
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen - please don't hear that! I am saying that beauty as defined by society is often a quality defined as time consuming - hours at the gym, hours cooking healthy food, hours highlighting your hair, hours doing your hair, hours bleaching your teeth, hours tanning your skin, hours, hours, hours...("of course it's all natural!").
For me, I saw this as a choice - and I have friends who saw it (see it) this way too. I could either develop my "soul", "spirituality", whatever you call it OR I could develop my body or image. I chose to develop my "spirituality", but I learned a few months ago that I made a mistake.
I am my body.
I am my mind. I am my emotions. I am my soul. All of this is me.
It was gnosticism that divided the world into physical and spiritual. Perhaps they were right, but for what it's worth, the Apostle Paul didn't think so.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/09/2004 08:23:49 PM | (0) comments
Divorced From Myself
Society is a world constructed - "of the people, by the people, for the people", so to speak. To the extent that a particular society corresponds to Truth is the extent to which it is sane.
And now I am thinking...we have completely lost our minds!
We're obsessed with dividing things up in categories. We talk about "head" and "heart" not only as if they were two different things, but as if they're two different people! And then we glorify the division of ourselves by saying things like,
"Even though I didn't feel like it, I made up my mind to do the right thing."
(everyone nods and mutters in approval)
Or then we talk about love - "When you say you love me, do you mean agape, phileo or erotic?" (No one actually really says this, but that is, in fact, the short version of what are trying to get at often.)
The examples of the ways we divide ourselves and our world are endless, but what really fascinates me here is this - we actually experience the division!
Because we really believe that there are two different things - head and heart - we literally live out our lives as "me-head" and "me-heart", and usually to the detriment of one of the "me's". Likewise, we often determine that our love for another is the "just friends" kind of love as opposed to "more" - which is code for phileo-love not erotic-love.
Alas, there's more to say and things to wonder on this way...
Ponder here as you read through, and strangely taste these thoughts I chew!
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/09/2004 09:38:49 AM
I Am Not Of This War, But I Am In It...
I confess I haven't kept up with the latest news...
But the pictures that are coming back from Iraq sicken me so deep inside, it grayed my whole day. All I can see is a couple of big, potbellied bullies with guns...and a pile of naked humans on the floor...
In the back of my mind, there's a scene playing...it was a powerful scene at one time, but I've mocked a time or two. Now it comes back to me powerful.
A red-faced, angry Jack Nicholson growls condescendingly, "You can't handle the truth."
He goes on to talk about how we all sit here in our nice houses with our nice fences going to the nice grocery stores - we have no idea what it takes to keep us safe...
What can I say? Have we saved lives by humiliating these men? Do we have more intelligence now? Has it been worth it?
Was this really what it took? Was there no other way?
Here I stand, in this world, in this war. I am not of it, but here I am in the middle of it.
Another voice haunts me now...
"What is truth?"
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/06/2004 01:46:57 PM
Steppin' On Toes
I love to dance and am fairly good at it, but if I were to tango with John Eldridge, I'd step on his toes...on purpose!!
Apparently, Mr. Eldridge believes (and perpetuates) that commonly held worldview in which women are in desperate need of a man to come rescue them.
This is what I have been told, at least. I suppose to be fair, I should confess that I've never read his popular book, "Wild At Heart", but a friend read it and told me that...
1) All men want an adventure.
2) All men want a battle.
3) All men want to rescue a "beauty".
There are many things I would like to say, such as, "Gosh it's too bad that 2 of the 3 desires in every man's heart will not be met in heaven, since I suppose we won't have battles or be in need of rescuing. Sounds like hell for them..."
I could go on...and on and on...but let me focus on the third thing that men want - to rescue a beauty.
Just for fun, let's take a look at Genesis. Listen to the story. Man was in the Garden with all of creation, but he was lonely. No animal could provide the intimacy he needed, and oddly enough God chose not meet that need personally either. Instead, God, the ultimate Rescuer, provides a "helper" for him.
Now let's just take a minute and look at the word "helper". This word is used 21 times in the Old Testament. Twice it is used in Genesis, to refer to the woman. Twice it refers to a military ally, and SEVENTEEN times, it refers to God. "God is my ever present help in time of trouble." Exact same word, y'all. Let's pause right here and take a look at the situation...
Who is in need of help? Who's in need of "rescuing?"
Ok. I was just checking...
But now let's continue. Next to the word "helper" is a Hebrew word that is best translated, "equal to", though often translated "suitable". In other words, the word "helper" by itself, would have implied superiority - namely the superiority of women - but by adding the words "equal to" the writer of Genesis establishes the man and woman as equals.
We have been created to long for each other - to long for true intimacy with each other - and both men and women long for this. If this is what Mr. Eldridge is implying when he suggests that in the heart of every man, there is a desire to "rescue a beauty", then I applaud him...but who are we kidding?
We all know that's not what he meant.
I suppose my (hear me - a "beauty", female, woman, etc...) new "battle" will be to tackle the lies interwoven in this book in order to "rescue" beautiful women and men from silliness...Wow! What an "adventure"!
Be careful when you "tango" with me, Mr. Eldridge!
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/05/2004 02:15:22 PM
Great Thoughts Of God
"The Christian servant must never forget that salvation is God’s idea, not man’s; therefore, it has an unfathomable depth. Salvation is the great thought of God, not an experience. Experience is simply the door through which salvation comes into the conscious level of our life so that we are aware of what has taken place on a much deeper level. Never preach the experience, preach the great thought of God behind the experience. When we preach, we are not simply proclaiming how people can be saved from hell and be made moral and pure; we are conveying good news about God."
...Oswald Chambers
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/05/2004 12:27:39 PM
Who Do Ya Love?
I love them...I do. And I always have. For some reason, when I was very young, I just fell in love with them. Not just fell in love with them, but even identified with them. It is something I simply can't put in words, but I can tell you this-
I cried when I watched him run. I held it together after the Kentucky Derby because there were folks around and I didn't want to make a scene, but as soon as I was alone, I just sat down and bawled.
It's not the speed. I know that I drive a car faster than they run, but a car never tried, never felt, never loved. A car is controlled by the driver.
You never really control a horse. Some people hurt them so bad they stop trying - and in a way stop being a horse. But if you continue to let them be a horse, then you'll never really control them.
You'll only ever ask.
And isn't that the truth about love? It is a freely given, self-chosen response to the question...
"Smarty Jones, do you love to run? 'Cause right here, in this final quarter of a mile, would be a good time to run..."
And run he did, because he loves it. He freely gave. He freely chose.
That is greatness, my friends. That is true greatness. It's not the speed or the muscles or the pounding hoofs - it is the ability to freely throw your heart at all that God made you to be.
And so it is with us as well.
God give us the freedom to throw our hearts at your love, and the love to give freedom to those who want to run.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/05/2004 09:48:55 AM
Bad Humor...But Darn Funny!
Here's a link that made me laugh - please don't hold it against me - I think it was the "Texas Cheerleader Big Hair"!
Wedding Dress
Read the description...
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/03/2004 02:24:11 PM
Brandon B. Is Smart
Brandon B. is smart. He is, really. Here's what he said (paraphrased by me):
Junior High rules are good for Junior High kids when it comes to opposite sex relationships, but those same rules may not be so great or even apply for 30 year old single folks.
So I suppose we could think of more rules for old (!) people, or we could ask THE BIG QUESTION. Which is, what's the point? Or, what's the issue? Or, what's the Truth?
(I guess maybe those are three BIG QUESTIONS and I bet we could think of more if we tried!)
So the question I'm really asking - and have been asking - throughout this whole "Sex-Series" is...
WHAT ARE WE DODGING??
Something is lurking under the surface and I want to know what it is! There are too many rules and not enough conversation and that combination makes the sex/sexuality/relationships issue very suspicious to me!
Your thoughts?
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/03/2004 12:16:58 PM
Call Me...An ARROGANT Fool!
Here is the list of finishers in the 130th Kentucky Derby. Items in bold were predicted ahead of time in my top three finishers list as can be seen on post below. Please visit this site for all your future wagering predictions!!!
Also, for more information on the Derby and this year's undefeated champion, visit Kentucky Derby 130.
1 Smarty Jones
2 Lion Heart
3 Imperialism
4 Limehouse
5 The Cliff's Edge
6 Action This Day
7 Read the Footnotes
8 Birdstone
9 Tapit
10 Borrego
11 Song of the Sword
12 Master David
13 Pro Prado
14 Castledale
15 Friends Lake
16 Minister Eric
17 Pollard's Vision
18 Quintons Gold Rush
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/02/2004 09:04:22 PM
Are There Any Comments Or Questions?
I have comments now...well, I've had them for the last couple of postings...but I suddenly got really excited about them and had to point them out to you.
"Look Mommy! Comments!"
On to other news, the Kentucky Derby is today. Who's gonna win? Well, it's a horse race...
Gutsy horses win the Derby. None of them have ever run a mile and quarter, so the last eighth of a mile is where you win or lose based on guts. The question then becomes, who's around when that last eighth starts?
Here are my guesses...
Master David
Smarty Jones
The Cliff's Edge
Lion Heart
Imperialism
Borrego
...and maybe Friends Lake and Castledale
Here's one of the favorites who won't be there...
Tapit - Don't bet on him, he's not going to fire today. I can feel it in my gut.
So who wins? Only a fool ever makes a prediction!
But my sentimental choice is Smarty Jones followed by Master David and Imperialism.
And none of them really have the breeding to win. Call me a fool.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/01/2004 11:29:03 AM
Inside My Head
Take a look!Top of Page
Pillow Talk
My Romance With Books, Pillow Talk.Top of Page
Herstory
Link Here
Link Here
Link Here
Link Here
Link Here
Link Here
Top of Page
Top of Page
AKA Horsewoman
Run For The Roses
Top of Page
Amaturefile
Coming soon!
Top of Page
Headless Chest
Top of Page
Copyright © 2005, All rights reserved, So Close to Real and Dramatic Design
Any problems with this website should be directed to: webmaster@dramatic-design.com
Special thanks to Devilgas Photographic for the background image.
