opportunities past

Last night I watched I Know What You Did Last Summer. By now, most people who care about the movie will have seen it, so I really don't have anything to post about the movie itself. It being a film from 1997, which was the same year I started college, made me think a bit, though.

Any time I see a movie from when I was a teenager, and especially a movie where the actors play roles near to what my age was at the time, I get a weird feeling like it represents opportunities that I did not take in life. I get the same feeling from home movies around the same time period. I do not know why that is because I don't know what sort of opportunities I could have taken. I did everything as I felt I should, and that period of my life offered a lot of challenges I wouldn't want to face again. It's not like I want to be an eighteen-year-old freshman in college one more time with the prospect of having to relearn the life lessons of the next three or four years.

I think my issue is that, even though there weren't any specific opportunities that I wanted to take at that point in my life, my path was not set. Everything represented opportunity. Every decision could dramatically alter the rest of my life for good or for bad. I think most of the choices I made in that time and since have been the right ones, but they transitioned from opportunity to responsibility, as is the way that life goes for pretty much everyone, and lost their excitement.

What is weird about this all is that I am actually young enough to realize that dreaming about opportunities missed is ridiculous because I still remember what that time period was really like. I think I understand the people who are older who want to reclaim their youth, but their youth was so long ago that they do not realize they are remembering an idealized version of their youth rather than the reality. If they were actually transported back to their real previous selves it would be torture, but in their idealized mind it sounds heavenly.

What I need to do right now is structure the rest of my life so that I feel I took every opportunity that I should have taken. The drawback is that that may require I do things that I usually avoid, like making resolutions. We'll have to see where this goes.

permissive legalism

Legalistic people suck
Legalism makes me sick
I wonder what makes them tick?
I wanna go puke on it
Ephesians verse 2:8 states
God has saved us not by works but by grace
So what's it gonna take?
There's no getting through to you- MxPx ("I'm the Bad Guy")

I have never liked the lyrics above because being accusatory doesn't solve anything, but the words fit too well into my topic today not to post them.

Probably the biggest sticking point for whether the typical American accepts Christianity is their perception of sin. I struggled for a long time reconciling what I saw as legalistic and permissive passages in Scripture, as a lot of people do. I still do struggle with it a bit and I probably always will. I now believe I have a better understanding of why the dichotomy should not be between legalism and permissiveness, though. The dichotomy should be between legalism and commitment.

I have always believed, as I do now, that legalism is the process of setting up exacting rules for what is right and wrong. I used to take it a step further, though, and believe that it was only the people who followed those exacting rules or who forced others to follow those rules who were being legalistic. Until recently, it did not sink in with me that the permissive person who assumes that God is fine with the things that he or she is doing is often legalistic as well.

The foundational tenet of Christianity is that humans are hopelessly fallen and need a savior, and that salvation is impossible without Christ because of our fallen nature. We can't be good enough on our own. This is where trying to live by a set of rules, or legalism, is pointless. My epiphany was that most people who rationalize why some thing that they want to do is not sin use the same legalistic mental framework to determine whether it is sin. "Did the Bible explicitly forbid it? Were there any apparent loopholes? In that case, it's not really a sin." They may have fewer rules that they follow, but they are slaves to legalism nonetheless. The whole process of labeling the activity as sin or not is legalism even if the person ultimately determines that the activity in question is not sin.

This fact that both the pious and the permissive can be legalistic illuminates a passage for me that has long confused me, though it is one of my favorites. Paul opens Galatians 5 by condemning those who were telling new converts that they had to be circumcised to be saved. We're free from the Law, Paul notes, so circumcision holds zero value toward salvation. The first twelve verses in the chapter seem to be pretty straightforward, as they state that we aren't bound to follow the Law. Verse thirteen gets a little sticky, though.

"You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature rather, serve one another in love."

So, I'm free but I'm not supposed to indulge the sinful nature? Doesn't that mean I am still under a legalistic system? Verses 19 through 21 go further and even detail a list of things we're not supposed to do, almost like a set of rules.

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

So, how can we reconcile this? Even with what I am about to say I still have trouble reading the acts of the sinful nature from any perspective other than a legalistic perspective. I think the key is in the verses prior to the description of the sinful nature. The following are verses 16 through 18.

"So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law."

If we focus solely on whether we take a strict or a permissive view of the rules rather than focusing on living by the Spirit we have missed the point. Unfortunately, the passage above is a vague statement that both the strict and the permissive can twist for their own purposes fairly easily. To get around this I turned to another passage that has similarly confused me in the past. In Romans 7 Paul talks about his sinning even though he did not want to, but in Romans 8 he says that those who are controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. The bridge between the two passages that addresses the apparent contradiction is Romans 7:25.

"Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our LORD! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

Our natures are slaves to the law of sin on this world no matter what we do, but we can give our mind to God's law. Legalism asks whether some action is a sin and worthy of punishment or not. This is not the system that God intended. The mind that is truly given over to God is concerned with loving God and neighbor, and through that love knows the right actions without a rule book. It is important to note that the mind will not win every battle with the nature. Paul's didn't. Legalism is not nearly so forgiving. Even with the mistakes, the mind that is truly committed to God is ultimately saved and receives no condemnation.

So legalism and permissiveness, if they both rely on establishing black and white rules, are two futile sides of the same coin. The real question is whether you are willing to make your mind and heart a slave to God. I have discussed in a separate post that this commitment will be painful if it is legitimate, but the pain does lead to a reward.

As I work through this myself I hope to hit more on the topic of what specifically making your mind and heart a slave to God entails. I don't know when I will post this, but I expect that it will reflect on the apparent sinfulness of almost everyone listed in Hebrews 11. Look forward to it.

the more i seek you

The more I seek you
The more I find you
The more I find you
The more I love you

I want to sit at your feet
Drink from the cup in your hand
Lay back against you and breathe
Feel your heart beat

This love is so deep
It's more than I can stand
I melt in your peace
It's overwhelming- Zach Neese ("The More I Seek You")

I have only twice heard the song with the lyrics above. The first time was in a church service several months back, and when I got home I had to email a few friends to ask them if they were as uncomfortable with the lyrics as I am. The second time was this past Sunday, again in a church service. Simply put, I can't sing the song. If I sing it it sounds like I'm singing to my boyfriend. Since I am a straight man that is a problem. One could argue that if I were a straight woman and felt the same way that would be a problem as well.

I discussed this with a few other friends tonight, and one important point that came up in the discussion is that without knowing that this is supposed to be a worship song most people would conclude that this was a slightly erotic love song. Giving the song context might make it a little better, but my mind simply cannot properly go from the physical relationship that the words imply to true worship.

The point of this post is not really to whine about the song, however, but to pose a few questions to the men and to the women who read this blog. Please note that I am asking because I am trying to understand how a song like this could get past the censors, as it were.

To the women, if you sang these lyrics in a worship service would it be worshipful as to God as God, or would it be worshipful to God as a significant other, or perhaps something else? Do you have any problems with seeing God as a significant other (like a boyfriend or a husband)? Do you find the lyrics above imply a physical or romantic relationship? If you were in a church service and heard that song would it occur to you that a man would be uncomfortable with the song?

To the men, do you agree with me or do you feel like this is not structured to be a romantic song? Could you sing it as a worshipful rather than a romantic song? Are there other songs that make you uncomfortable for the same reason I am uncomfortable with this song?

I am also open to input beyond these questions. Golden made an excellent point that she could sing the song from the perspective of a child/parent relationship with God. I really can see that, though I still can't shake the romantic relationship idea strong enough to sing it in that way. If anyone else has any other insights I would love to hear them.

workspace

I recently moved from my old office in the interior of the building to an office with an outside view. I have not really stopped to look outside during the day, but I wonder if just having the natural without paying much attention to it makes a health and mood difference. My moods are affected by the weather, so I suspect there's something to that.

For a while I actually wanted to keep my interior office largely due to familiarity and inertia, but on one specific day a few days before I found out that I would be moving I noticed that I felt very out of sorts for most of the day. I could not put my finger on it. I was a bit tired, but no more than typical and I did not feel sick. I suspected at least one factor was the lack of natural light. I have been in the office three years now without a day quite Ike that until now, though, so it could just have been some weird bug.

I would be interested in finding out if a study has been done on people who spend more time in the sun versus people who do not, and whether one group is more healthy than the rest or more happy than the rest when things like level of exercise is controlled. There has got to be something behind that.

feminism

I have been thinking about a post on a perspective on Feminism for a while but haven't really known which way to take a topic with such a wide scope and that is so potentially explosive. Since my interest in Feminism has to do with the ways that it has impacted my thinking I decided to focus on that. Unfortunately, since I am looking for oddities in my thinking, this may look like an attack on Feminism. This is not intentional, though, as I personally believe Feminism exists out of necessity. If I were a woman having to deal with some of the men that I have met in my life, I would probably see a very strong need for nearly all Feminist ideals as well.

I have especially thought a lot about different approaches to the genders in the past few months as I recently completed the book Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters: 10 Secrets Every Father Should Know by Meg Meeker. I initially decided this would be a good book for me to read since I do not have experience raising a girl. Many of the book's theses challenged my opinions which I believe originated in Feminist thought. One point in particular was that most girls on some level associate a strong father figure who sets and keeps strict rules as a dad who is "being there" for her. A constant emphasis in the book is that girls are frequently given so much space that they are not entirely convinced that they are worth being protected. Since I grew up in a relatively strict home this does enlighten some things for me, but it also creates a conflict in my brain.

I know from what my own needs were as a kid that boys operate a bit differently from this and that their need for respect often (not always) contradicts the strict approach. Strictness, especially with older boys, needs to be offset with something that they can use to feel respected. What that something is probably varies and is something that I need to investigate further for NJ's sake. The fact remains that what I am reading about what girls need differs from what I know that boys need. The problem I have is that I now almost feel forced into a double standard for how boys and girls ought to be raised. While I am thankful for the new perspective on double standards, I am uncomfortable with the fact that I have now been forced to reconsider whether some are better in place than abolished.

This talk of explicitly supporting some double standards is not meant to sound sexist. I am not only referring to double standards that appear to negatively impact women. Something that I don't think gets acknowledged is that many double standards disproportionately impact men, and that they do not only target women. Reactions to cross-dressing and the expectation on men that they will bring home the bacon are examples of double standards that impact men more than women, but accepting them does not make a person sexist.

Another reason I have been thinking about Feminism a bit is due to a news story that ran a couple of years ago. A study was performed that established that men who believe in traditional gender roles made more money. The headline from multiple news sources read something to the effect of "Sexist Men Earn More Money." The article titles left little doubt that only a sleazeball sexist would believe that it was ideal for his wife to watch the kids during the day.

Aside from the abortion issue (I'm not going into that today), if there is one position that traditional Feminism takes that does really irritate me it is the assumption that traditionalists are sexist toward women but not toward men. I know far more women who are vocal about wanting to be stay-at-home moms than men who are vocal about wanting their wives to stay home, but it seems the only person who can be sexist in this equation is the man. An enlightened opinion is one that either says it is the wife's choice or one that says the wife has to work outside the house. My perspective put bluntly is that if it is sexist for a husband to expect that his wife should stay at home, then it is sexist for a wife to expect that her husband should work so that she can stay home. I don't believe either positions are inherently sexist, but it is hypocritical to hold one view and not the other. The simple reason that men who believe in traditional gender roles make more is that they believe they are fully responsible for their family's income so they take more steps to make more money by working longer hours at the office, taking second jobs, getting more education, etc. If a man is less traditional and believes that he should not be fully responsible for the family's income, then he will be less likely to make serious sacrifices to bring in more money.

In our situation, Golden had to work for a year because our finances necessitated it. Both of us preferred that she be able to take care of NJ and CD (it was only NJ at the time), but she felt more strongly about it than I did. Am I a sexist for preferring that Golden be able to stay home with NJ? Is Golden a sexist for strongly pushing for that option? What about with our decision for Golden to work a year while our finances improved? Would I have been sexist if I insisted on Golden working so that I could stay home with the kids? I probably make more money than I would if I was significantly less traditional because I would not have sought work positions with the sole intent of being able to provide for my family. I would have probably gotten a degree in a less practical field if I had bothered with a degree at all.

While my actual view leans more traditional, it is more that each family has to decide what is the best way for things to be run. There are situations where both parents working outside the home makes the most sense. There are situations where it is ideal if one parent stays home and watches the kids. There are a million other combinations of part time work, or friends and family watching the kids, or baby-sitting co-ops, etc. The point is that believing that one of the options above is ideal for your family or is ideal in a typical situation does not automatically make you a sexist.

There are other points that I could make about feminist thought that are both good and bad, but these are the ones that have been on my mind. As always, I am more than willing to discuss in the comments, but I always prefer that things stay civil and don't get too political.