Someone to Watch Over Me

My daughter and I are going to play some music for a wedding this coming Saturday. She will play tenor sax and I will play my guitar for 8 old romantic  songs. Someone to Watch Over Me is one of the songs. 

What happened to us as a culture? I mean, why are we taught as women that the kind of man in this song is dangerous and abusive? Here is part of the Wikkipedia entry for the song.

"Someone to Watch Over Me" is a song composed by George Gershwin with lyrics by Ira Gershwin from the musical Oh, Kay! (1926), where it was introduced by Gertrude Lawrence. Gershwin originally approached the song as an uptempo jazz tune, but his brother Ira suggested that it might work much better as a ballad, and George ultimately agreed. It has been performed by numerous artists since its debut and is a jazz standard as well as a key work in the Great American Songbook. It is also referenced in the play Someone Who'll Watch Over Me.

A man who is willing to watch over his wife - yes, notice that the woman in the song is looking for a husband - is by definition a man who is not planning to abuse her. 

There are other versions of this song sung by men, and I think that works as well. Good husbands and wives watch over one another. They care for one another. What is wrong with that? I say nothing. 

It's in the traditional marriage vows, even. 

Okay, so I am an unusual person. When my husband and I got married these vows were already considered to be archaic. No, I have not always kept my vows to the letter, but this is what I promised my husband, and what he promised me before God. These vows did not lead to my being abused. We are not the perfect couple, but we took these vows seriously, and still do. 

Groom: I,____, take thee,_____, to be my wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance.

Bride: I,_____, take thee,_____, to be my wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part,
according to God’s holy ordinance.

It has not been easy for him, because I am not an easy person to live with all the time. I can be a drama queen, demanding, and very high maintenance sometimes. I am a soft spoken person, but don't mistake that for weakness. 

There are times he has had to clean up my messes, even. There are times he has watched over me  when I have been sick. There are times he has had to tell me that I cannot do something that I want to do. There are other times he has encouraged me to do things that have stretched me to the limit. 

When we made this commitment before God, we thought it would be kind of easy since we were in love - and still are - and we had a purpose in life.

There are times when my husband has said in despair that he is glad there will be no marriage in heaven!  Anyway, I don't think we're that unusual. We promised to stay together through good times and bad. There have been a lot of good times. I can still make him laugh.

I know that not everyone has had spouses that have kept their vows. I get that. Why do we have to, as a culture, allow broken vows to become the norm? Can't we fight harder to preserve the ideal of what marriage is supposed to be like?

Yes, there are times that I have had to tell him that I cannot possibly do what he is asking me to do. There are times I have had to tell him that what he was planning was not all that great an idea.It's my job as help meet - corresponding helper. Sometimes we negotiate.

However, those vows never wear out.




----------------------------------------------------------------



There's a saying old, says that love is blind
Still we're often told, "seek and ye shall find"
So I'm going to seek a certain lad I've had in mind

Looking everywhere, haven't found him yet
He's the big affair I cannot forget
Only man I ever think of with regret

I'd like to add his initial to my monogram
Tell me, where is the shepherd for this lost lamb?

There's a somebody I'm longin' to see
I hope that he, turns out to be
Someone who'll watch over me

I'm a little lamb who's lost in the wood
I know I could, always be good
To one who'll watch over me

Although he may not be the man some
Girls think of as handsome
To my heart he carries the key

Won't you tell him please to put on some speed
Follow my lead, oh, how I need
Someone to watch over me

Won't you tell him please to put on some speed
Follow my lead, oh, how I need
Someone to watch over me

Someone to watch over me

St. Thomas Aquinas Praying - Ethical Dilemma

O God, grant that whatever good things I have, I may share generously with those who have not, and that whatever good things I do not have, I may request humbly from those who do. Plant deep in me, Lord, all the virtues, that I might be devout in divine matters, discerning in human affairs, and burdensome to no one in fulfilling my own bodily needs. Order me inwardly through a good life that I might do what is right and what will be meritorious for me and a good example for others.

- St. Thomas Aquinas

A couple of weeks or so ago I was facing a small dilemma in my life and ministry. Some of our colleagues in Mexico - Mayans - have relied on an agricultural project to help with their support needs. We have been doing this for about 10 years, now. 

Well, the guys have run out of capital. So, what do I do? Do I use some of my money - an inheritance from my parents that we really need for our retirement? It was weighing on me, because I believe that Jesus really meant it when He said.:

Luke 6:30

30 Give to everyone who asks you,

So, what do I do? I had already given the lion's share of the money to my husband to invest somewhere for retirement. We are missionaries and our income is on the lower end of the scale. No, we are not poor, but we are on the bottom of middle class. We are fine, but are also getting to that age where retirement is looking more like a real possibility all the time. No, missionaries don't really ever retire, but they do transition to other kinds of ministries. So, I would be taking back some of what I had already given to my husband. 

Anyway, that's the context of this dilemma.  What to do? 

A friend reminded me that in the story of the Good Samaritan, he did not take the wounded man home. We can reason from that fact that our own homes come first. Yes, be generous, but do not give away what your own family needs.

I think that has an application to ministry. How many children of pastors and missionaries lose their faith because the parents were giving away what really belonged to the children - their parents' time, love, and care for them as part of the family unit. Many Christian workers are no better than infidels in that regard. 

My own family needs that inheritance money - which is not a large amount, but it is something. 

Anyway, my friends in Mexico still had a need, and it still weighed on me. 

I stumbled on this quote from Aquinas, and I think that in what he says, there is proper Christian, Biblical balance. Be generous. Do not be a burden on anyone. If you are not able to meet a need you know about, then ask people who do have the means necessary to help. 

So, I have asked others for help in this.I was trying to figure out how to do it on my own, and maybe God has another idea.  If God provides through them, then isn't it like His saying that the project is His will and it needs to go forward? I am going on the assumption, one that we have lived by for all our married life. I don't want to implicate God as if I know exactly what His mind is, but I asked for help. 

We have until January.  For now, I am at peace about it.  We shall see. No, I am not asking anyone who may read this for help. This is not a fundraising post. It is about how Christians resolve ethical dilemmas using Scripture, common sense, and sound reasoning - like Acquinas and many others have done before and since. 

If I just went by some gut feeling, I would have sent the money down, and made my family unhappy. I had not considered all options, including the fact that it may not be God's will. My heart is willing to give, but that may not be enough in all cases. 

Anscombe - good quotes

I am taking refuge in the beauty of Christian philosophy and Christian music, as well as Scripture and prayer. It's a crazy world out there, and everyone needs a place of refuge and rest. Kind of like  Lothlórien in The Lord of the Rings. So, here I am again. 

Faith in a Hard Ground
Essays on Religion, Philosophy and Ethics by G.E.M. Anscombe - edited by Mary Geach and Luke Gormally. 

Mary Geach is one of Anscombe's daughters. Anscombe was the mother of 7 children. That part still amazes and inspires me. 

 First of all, the title is appropriate for our day. It has always been difficult for believers to keep their faith strong. We constantly battle our own inertia, the tug of the world's system and its values, and the devil's deceptions. The ground is hard for many reasons. Anscombe's essays have been preserved in several volumes. Faith in a Hard Ground is one of them.

Here is a Chesterton quote that is found on p. 4 of the iBooks version of Faith in a Hard Ground.

"And his faith grew in a hard ground
Of doubt and reason and falsehood found,
Where no faith else could grow."

- The Ballad of the White Horse

Geometry was her favourite branch of mathematics. p. 12)

I found this detail interesting, since geometry was the only branch of mathematics that made sense to me. Interesting factoid.

On the same page as the quote, Anscombe is said to have found an argument that she wanted to improve in a  work on natural theology. This was when she was still a student. I'm not sure, but I think this was a book that influenced her to convert to the Catholic religion. She had grown up in a Protestant home.

The book she had been reading presented an argument to the effect that God "has knowledge of what sins dead people would have committed if they had lived longer." (p. 12) She saw the flaw in that line of reasoning, since no such thing existed so how could it be known?

"She consciously became a Catholic, but her treatment of this book shows that she was a philosopher, with good philosophical instincts, before she knew that she was one." (p. 12)

I suspect that she had been a philosopher for a long time before she worked out the flaw in the argument of the book she was reading - probably since childhood, but I don't know that for a fact.

Here is something that shows her ability to take complex ideas and make them accessible to all kinds of people, not just her fellow philosophers.

"Mary Warnock describes her as 'dedicated to dialogue which is central to philosophy..." (p. 12) 

This kind of dialogue is really needed in our day. And...

'She was in some ways, a more attentive parent than most; ... She was good at thinking at the level of the person she was speaking to,..." (p. 13)

Some of the articles in this book were written for a more general audience, and not just for those trained in philosophy. She could communicate her ideas to all kinds of people.

Anscombe's faith came first in her life, so that is why all of her children stayed in the Catholic faith. (p. 13)  Philosophy was her life as well as her profession. She did have a time when she was tempted intellectually in the form of an argument presented by Bertrand Russell. He claimed that, "an argument from the facts about the world to the existence of God could not be valid, as one could not deduce a necessary conclusion from a contingent premiss." (p. 13)

It took her some time to find the solution to this problem that had challenged her faith. She made an act of faith by going to church.

She realized later that of course one can derive necessary conclusions from contingent premises.

Evidently Russell's inability to see the flaw in his own argument likely showed his hatred of God, according to the author. If he admitted that he was wrong, then he would have come face to face with the reality of God's existence - something he was not willing or not able to do.

So, these few quotes and some commentary based on the book's introduction give a little window into the sould of Anscombe. Her faith kept her from falling into grave error even philosophically as well as theologically.

Here is an article by William Lane Craig explaining the Argument from Contingency and why it is logically irrefutable.

Thomas, Anscombe, and Mahalia

What do St. Thomas Aquinas, G.E.M. Anscombe, and Mahalia Jackson have in common?  Well, maybe the connection is nothing more than a personal one for me. I will try to explain.

I have gotten to know them and their work lately. Why didn't I know about them before? Well, of course, Thomas is famous and so was Mahalia. I had heard about them but had not paid very much attention to them at all. It wasn't the right time, I suppose. My mother told us just a few days before she passed away that Jesus always comes at just the right time. So, I suppose that these three came to me at just the right time. I believe Jesus had a lot to do with it. No, I am not having visions or hearing voices. By their coming to me, I mean in the form of the written page and in the case of Mahalia Jackson, the recorded voice.

Each one, in their own way, has been enriching my life. There is beauty and even artistry in what each one did. They are like role models for me. Aquinas as a saint and great Christian thinker. Anscombe as a woman, the mother of 7 children, who was also a renowned Christian philosopher. Mahalia as The Queen of Gospel. Somehow they got connected in my mind. Not quite sure how that happened, but it was a very good influence that helped me make that connection.

I like theology, especially Reformed theology. However, I think it's more of a guys' thing. After awhile, I kind of lost interest. What especially thrilled, and still thrills me about theology is the Gospel as expressed in the Doctrines of Grace. Then there is the wonderful ordo salutis, which really doesn't have anything to do with the way my Reformed brothers greet one another...and God's blessed, mysterious sovereignty. So, I am grateful for all I learned while discussing and studying theology. I will keep pecking away at my book on the Westminster Confession of Faith, which I enjoy. Really, I enjoy it like I enjoy my morning oatmeal and cup of coffee. It is comforting and nourishing. I look forward to it.  It's like a good way to start the day, but I can't eat oatmeal all day.

Lately, a dear person suggested that maybe I might be interested in St. Thomas Aquinas and G.E.M. Anscombe. Say what? It was kind of off the wall, but I thought why not. I feel like I need a challenge. So, here I am. No, I do not have what it takes to be a real philosopher, but maybe I can sit at the feet of greatness and learn something beautiful, heavenly even.

Why Mahalia? Not sure. I am kind of bogged down musically as well. So, somehow it seemed to make sense to try to learn Gospel oboe. Now, maybe the oboe is too melancholy for Gospel. Maybe it is not intense and gutsy in the right ways, since it is a pretty refined instrument. It also has a lighter, happier side to it. So, maybe Gospel blues will work. It has been fun to jam on my oboe along with Mahalia. It makes me feel good.  I have to improvise my own parts. It is a stretch. Not sure if I can get fully incorporate the mystical 3 of Gospel blues into my musical ser.

When I play with Mahalia, I kind of get it, but away from her I revert to squaring off all the little notes. Jazz musicians call what they do "swing" and what I do "square". They are right. We are trained as classical musicians to square everything up - each 16th note carefully placed where it belongs in each beat, each 8th note as well. Triples are carefully placed in neat little bundles of squared 3s.

Jazz is pure metaphysics, at least that's what Dave taught me. It's Coletrain and A Love Supreme. Now to see if the oboe and I have it in us. Not sure, but I want to reach for it, by the grace of God. If I cannot, the oboe's best friend, Bach, will be there to pick me up if I fall from Mahalia grace. He loves the square, but he also was a mystic. There is a trinity of form and expression. Circles of phrasing and dynamics, - the breath of God's Spirit. Anyway...

I just purchased an oboe d'Amore. Can't wait to hear what it sounds like with Mahalia. It has to acclimatize first. Then it needs to be broken in gently - 15 minutes twice a day for awhile, then a little more, and then a little more until it is safe to play all I want. I can't let the wood crack. That would be tragic. I have wanted to get an English Horn, but decided on the d'Amore instead. The EH is a bit of a stretch for my hands, and it is kind of heavy.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I think to good places.

Aquinas and Anscombe settle my mind, which gets restless. I am not interested in all kinds of philosophy, just in Christian philosophy in the form of Thomism. We'll see how far this takes us.

I remember taking a philosophy class back in college. It was disturbing, and I have never wanted to study philosophy again. The course I took was not grounded in the Source.

I think it is wonderful to think of St. Thomas, at the end of his life. As he lay dying, all he wanted read to him was The Song of Solomon. His soul was in rapture, communing with His Beloved.

I think that Mahalia saw the same things, and lived in Jesus' presence as few have. This song I borrowed from YouTube - How I Got Over - expresses her wonder at the very idea that she would have made it over. It was through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

I wanna' thank God for how He kept me
I wanna' thank God for how He never left me.
...
My soul looks back in wonder at how I made it over.

I want to live in that place of wonderment and rapture that Thomas and Mahalia experienced. The world is a very dark and violent place. I don't want to withdraw from the world, but while in this world, I want to take refuge in Jesus. I want to have some good company along the way in the form of good books, good thoughts, good music and good friends.

So, I have chosen these 3 companions - or have they chosen me?  Has Someone chosen them for me? I think so.


I need strength for the journey since in my real life, I often go on adventures to far off places that are in turmoil, or where former turmoil has settled the people's soul into a kind of quiet desperation. Besides, this past year has been one of grief for our family as we lost first my mother and then, a few weeks later, my father-in-law. Next year will be intense as well as we as a family face a huge giant that is already casting a shadow on our lives. We need His light more than ever before as things around get darker. I want to live in the Light from on high as my new friends did. In a way they are with me, since they are having an impact on my life - and girls are all about relationships.

Luke 1:78,79
because of the tender mercy of our God,
    whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high
79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
    to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

Mary, the Free - 3

Children create a mother out of an ordinary woman.
- Janice M. Van Dyck in Finding Frances


I hope I can put into words what I believe about motherhood, and then make a connection to Mary, the mother of our Lord. This subject is probably way beyond me, but is it such a bad thing for a woman's reach to exceed her grasp?

What I think and believe is pretty archaic, really. It is old wisdom. In fact, I believe it is as old as Creation itself, eternal wisdom, even. At this point in my life, I want to sink down further into that Wisdom, into God Himself. Okay, so, I just took a leap, there, but isn't  life about Him, since He is Life itself? Sooner or later the leap has to be made. The alternative is death and deep darkness. So much more could and should be said. I'll just throw that idea out there.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, I'll wrap this up for now and say that if you look at Mary, she was a pretty ordinary woman, a woman of her time and circumstance. Here is what she said about herself.:

Luke 1:52

He has brought down the mighty from their thrones

and exalted those of humble estate;


She was talking about all of Israel, and including herself in the category of "those of humble estate."


So, she had no special status in society. Her fiance, and later husband, Joseph, was a construction worker. Now, the idea that Joseph was a construction worker has an historical basis. Sure, maybe he also worked in wood, so he could be called a carpenter. But Galilee where he and Mary lived is not a forested area. What they have are rocks, lots of them. The ruins of the buildings around the Sea of Galilee are made from rocks, not wood. I will try to document what I say, here, but for now, I'll just throw that out there. He was indeed, just an average Joe.  Yes, there is more to their background than what their outward appearance at the time of Roman occupation demonstrated, but outwardly, they were what we might call  humble,  small-town folk, working hard to make a living.

In fact we would not have known anything about her 2,000 years later if it had not been for her Child. It is that Child which made her not just a mother, but the mother and that woman. What woman?

So, I think that Van Dyck's observation about motherhood is right in the sweet spot of capturing the essence of motherhood. A Child turned an ordinary woman into the most important mother of all mothers after Eve, who was the mother of all living.

Mary, the Free - 2

Okay, so just because I think that Evangelicals like me need to talk more about Mary, the mother of our Lord, doesn't mean that I know how to. It is not part of my faith tradition. Yes, we learn facts about her, just like we learn facts about other Bible characters, but we don't know what to do with her otherwise.

I'll start by saying that Mary is probably the exact opposite of evil, Lilith that I have written about. While Lilith is the anti-wife and anti-mother, Mary is an ideal wife and mother who gave herself to the mission God had for her - and she did so beautifully.

Now, I'm going to say something that may be a little controversial. We Evangelicals may think of Mary as a demon, so that's why we don't even talk about the Mary of the Bible.  We accuse Catholics of Mariolatry, and are so smug and Biblical about it. Online, there is website after website, article after article written to expose the dangers of Mary. Well, they may not mean it that way, but that is the way it comes across.

No wonder we don't even want to talk about the Biblical Mary.  Maybe cowardice is part of it. Maybe we don't want to be branded Maryolatrous. So we avoid her, at least for the most part.

I think that is unfortunate. We may be missing out on an important part of our Christian heritage. Read my first post where I gave 3 links to legit Catholic sources where what their Church teaches about Mary is explained. No, I am not in agreement with everything, but I at least owe it to Catholics to acknowledge what they really believe, avoiding straw men arguments.  Anyone can beat the stuffing out of a straw man.


I can talk about the Mary of the Bible without insulting my Catholic friends and loved ones, at least I hope I can. Maybe I can say something that will help someone else, or maybe something that will help me as I look for my mother - which sounds odd to me, too, if anyone reads that and thinks it's odd for me to talk like that.

If anyone is offended, I am truly sorry. That is not my intention at all. If anyone is encouraged to go back to the Bible and take a look at the example our sister, Mary, left for us, then that's a good thing.

More later...

Lilith, the Free - 4

Okay, so maybe one more on the Lilith myth, and I'll be done with this topic.

Lilith, then, rejected her role as wife and mother. This myth was known in the 1st Century, and may have been one of the Jewish fables that Paul talked about in Titus 1:14-16 saying "not devoting themselves to Jewish myths..."

Paul, here, cannot mean the Old Testament Scriptures of the Jews, since that is the inspired Word of God. So, he must mean something else.

In post #3 of this series, I provided a link to a website that explained some Jewish Gnostic teachings about the Lilith myth. These teachings are very ancient, some being taken from the Talmud, according to the article The Lilith Myth found at the Gnosis Archive. 

The long and the short of it is that Lilith did not want to be a wife, and she did not want to be a mother. What I call Lilith feminism, as I said earlier, is the brand of feminism that predominates the women's movement at this point in time, as I said in post #2.

So, maybe we can tie the Lilith Myth to the Biblical phrase I mentioned,  "not devoting themselves to Jewish myths..."  The Apostle Paul very likely had this myth, as well as others in mind when he wrote that phrase.

To support what I say, I would like to offer as evidence Paul's teachings on marriage found in the same book of Titus in the famous chapter 2.  Here is the text that talks about how Christian women are to behave. A lot has been written about being that Titus 2 woman. Could it be that he is presenting the Christian alternative to the Lilith lifestyle?

Titus 2
3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 
4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 
5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. 

So, how is the Lilith myth related to Titus 2?  It is very likely saying to women, "don't be a Lilith." Look at the extreme behavior Lilith was involved in. She was promiscuous. She destroyed her children. She refused to live with her husband. She wanted nothing to do with her home and family. In short, her behavior was outrageous, and she was unrepentant. 

Don't be like her. Be devoted to one man, your husband. Love him and him alone - and I think that  the implication is probably something like,  "have sex with him and not with other men." The Bible does not assault us with sexual imagery, but it does give us the idea of what should go on between a husband and a wife. Of course, that phrase "to Love their husbands" would include things like being kind to him as well as caring for him. 

Work at home. Many books or at least book chapters have been written on this phrase - a lot of it really silly. Wouldn't it mean something like make sure your home is cared for? I don't see a prohibition in there about working outside the home as well.  Each family needs to weigh the pros and cons. Many women are stay at home moms or at least limit their number of hours at work. Other women work fulltime outside the home. That depends on many, many factors.  So, there is no one size fits all solution for Christian women as far as working outside the home goes. Not all Christian women even have children, and of course, not all are married.  It's just that the family should not be sacrificed to the wanton lusts of the wife and mother. 

Take care of your children. Do not destroy them like Lilith did. Don't be a promiscuous party girl. Assume your responsibilities at home. Stuff like that. 

I don't see how the Quiverfull teachings can be shoe-horned into Titus 2. Some families have faith to receive many children, and I actually love it that they do. It's just that there is no law about that in the New Testament, so we should not try to make one either for or against, IMO. It is undeniable, thought, that traditional Christianity - including pretty much every kind of Christian group before the advent of birth control - has always encouraged Christians to have large families. It's a beautiful thing. That's easy for me to say since I am the mother of an only child. I am also the daughter of a 10th child. My dad was the last in a series of 10 children that my grandmother gave birth to. 

When I was a little girl, I wanted to be just like my Mumu from Finland. It wasn't meant to be. 

Whatever else, the Christian wife and mother is not supposed to be like the demonic spirit, Lilith, of Jewish mythology. Paul gives the antidote.

I'm just throwing that out there. I don't think it's too much of a stretch, but I do not have access to a lot of historical stuff to support what I say. Besides, the Lilith myth is so creepy I don't want to study it any further.

Mary, the Free - 1

Intro.
I think that the traditional Catholic understanding of Mary has some serious flaws, but they get many things  right. What they get right may very well outweigh or at least balance out in both faith and practice what, IMO, they get wrong.  We Evangelicals tend to look at the Virgin Mary as a kind of usurper, even a cover for demonic spirits who would lead us away from pure faith in Christ. We rarely mention her, except when we have to - like at Christmastime when we talk about the Virgin Birth in passing.

The rest of the year, she doesn't get airtime in our churches, except maybe to say that we do not venerate her - whatever that means to us. For all practical purposes, Mary does not exist for us. We are proud of that fact, even. We do not tolerate Mariolatry!  I suspect that Catholics would not tolerate it, either.

I think that we Evangelicals are losing out by ignoring Mary. A proper Biblical understanding of this most blessed of women  may very well be a kind of prophylactic, a protection from demonic spirits - and I am not sure I have that proper understanding. I am just one woman sitting at my dining room table, trying to gain and then put into words a greater understanding of what being a woman in Christ means and how I am supposed to live that out in my life. Maybe someone else reading this will be encouraged to get  to know the Biblical Mary as well. She is not a nobody, after all.

I won't try to explain Catholic dogma, since I am not qualified to do that, obviously. However, here are some links that explain quite clearly what Mary means and does not mean in the Catholic system. Again, I am not in full agreement with what is presented at these websites, but neither am I in agreement with what I will call the standard Evangelical understanding of what Catholicism teaches! Anyway...  I will put my Evangelicalism eyeglasses on and try to explain why I think that we as Evangelicals need Mary more than ever before. If anyone wants to study the Catholic Church's teaching about Mary, these resources are reliable.

Mary is Our Mother

The Blessed Virgin Mary

The following blog post kind of got me thinking about how in our Evangelical faith, Mary doesn't even exist, not even when we talk about motherhood. Ann Voskamp is not more guilty of this kind of oversight than the rest of us. At least Ann spoke beautifully about motherhood, even if she left out the woman, as Elizabeth Scalia gently pointed out.  How did we Evangelicals allow this to happen?

No, I cannot be a Catholic...

Dear Ann Voskamp: Which Mama First Modeled Fluid Beauty?


I am not sure that I can keep calling myself Evangelical, either. Yes, I have no problem identifying with the Evangelicalism of even a couple of decades ago. However, what she is becoming terrifies me.

Some are opting for just plain Christian, but that can mean anything and nothing.

More later...

Lilith, the Free - 3

I will say that my understanding of Lilith has been informed by the Christian writer George MacDonald, so I will start there. There is an excellent study guide to the book, and it can be found online here.

Lilith Study Guide

Also, here are the links to a couple of posts I wrote awhile back about MacDonald's Lilith.

Lilith Redeemed

Lilith

MacDonald took the Jewish myth and Christianized it. In his version, Lilith is restored to who she was supposed to be in the first place. It is a phantasy novel.  In fact, MacDonald is credited with being the father of the phantasy genre. He had a huge impact on both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.

Here are some characteristics of the mythical Lilith. It's pretty creepy, actually, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Biblical account found in Genesis 1 and 2. Lilith was, allegedly, Adam's first wife who obviously went off the rails, thinking that she was finding true freedom. She refused to return to her husband and live as a wife was supposed to live.

 Adam and Lilith never found peace together; for when he wished to lie with her, she took offence at the recumbent posture he demanded. 'Why must I lie beneath you?' she asked. 'I also was made from dust, and am therefore your equal.' Because Adam tried to compel her obedience by force, Lilith, in a rage, uttered the magic name of God, rose into the air and left him.

Adam complained to God: 'I have been deserted by my helpmeet' God at once sent the angels Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof to fetch Lilith back. They found her beside the Red Sea, a region abounding in lascivious demons, to whom she bore lilim at the rate of more than one hundred a day. 'Return to Adam without delay,' the angels said, `or we will drown you!' Lilith asked: `How can I return to Adam and live like an honest housewife, after my stay beside the Red Sea?? 'It will be death to refuse!' they answered. `How can I die,' Lilith asked again, `when God has ordered me to take charge of all newborn children: boys up to the eighth day of life, that of circumcision; girls up to the twentieth day. None the less, if ever I see your three names or likenesses displayed in an amulet above a newborn child, I promise to spare it.' To this they agreed; but God punished Lilith by making one hundred of her demon children perish daily; [5] and if she could not destroy a human infant, because of the angelic amulet, she would spitefully turn against her own. [6]

The Lilith Myth from the Gnosis Archive

So, when I talk about Lilith feminism, this is what I mean. She abandoned her helpmeet duties. She did not want a man who would dominate her sexually.  She wanted to destroy children. She did not want to be a wife, and she destroyed even children she bore. She gave herself to many lovers, and thought she was free. 

There are other interesting details in the Gnosis Archive, like the idea of androgyny and the creation of Adam. The Bible does not say that Adam was androgynous, but part of the Lilith Myth involves androgyny. Creepy stuff. 

This is a far cry from, say, Susan B. Anthony, pro-life, pro-marriage feminism. It is a far cry from feminists like G.E.M. Anscombe or Dorothy Sayers. In fact, Sayers refused to call herself a feminist because she did not want to identify herself with the progressive women's movement. She was a Conservative. Both of these women were devout Catholics. 

Why do I want to write about this freaky Lilith myth?  It strikes fear in my heart, actually. I would rather write about and share videos of cute little kittens. Suffice it to say that in certain discussions during which I used to crash and burn, at times, the spirit of Lilith manifested itself. She is alive and well, even among some who call themselves Evangelicals, sad to say. Now, it might cost me something to say that. I shall see. 

I think that George MacDonald was aware of Lilith's presence in his time as well. He wrote his book showing the way for Lilith's redemption and recreation through the Gospel. So, for the sake of the Gospel and of truth, I am willing to take the risk. 

Motherless Child - 2

Intro:

Even thought I may feel like a motherless child, I really am not.So, here are a couple of Scriptures that show me why I am not a motherless child. I have a mother.

I. Galatians 4:26,27- English Standard Version (ESV)

26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;

    break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!

For the children of the desolate one will be more

    than those of the one who has a husband.”

  A. My mother is the heavenly Jerusalem. The human woman, Sarah, is used as a metaphor for our heavenly mother. Remember that Sarah was Abraham's wife. She was barren for most of her life.  Her biological clock had timed out, and had quit functioning for decades before God did a miracle in her. He allowed her to become pregnant at about age 90.

  B. Notice that He did so with Sarah in a very human way, by making it possible for her to have a human child.  God did not give her an alien child, but one that was very human. Remember Star Wars and how Anikan Starwalker - who later became Darth Vadar - was born? He had a human mother, but some kind of alien force entered his mother and she became pregnant with her son, Anikan.

  C. That is not the kind of thing we are talking about with Sarah. She was a real human woman, and her husband a real human man. They made a child, Isaac, in the normal, human way. What was not normal, but rather miraculous, was their advanced age. (see Genesis 18)

  D. So, it pleased God to give Sarah a son. Not only that, it pleased God to use Sarah as a metaphor for how He brings many children into His family. She is the type of the heavenly Jerusalem, the true mother of all who believe Jesus Christ. In this spiritual relationship, there is no physical union to produce children, of course.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

- John 3:6 KJV

I think that we could say that the Heavenly Jerusalem is our motherland, our patria. We belong to her and we belong with her. Of course, this is metaphorically speaking. She is our true home.

II. John 3:1-5

You Must Be Born Again

3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2 This man came to Jesus[a] by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

  A. Now, this translation is interesting.

   1. Look at the passage I cut and pasted into this post. There is a [b] that leads to a footnote. Here is the text of that footnote.

John 3:3 - Or from above; the Greek is purposely ambiguous and can mean both again and from above; also verse7

     

     2. It is possible to do a free translation of this verse, which gives a person a little more latitude without claiming that it is the official translation. So, a free translation might be something like this:

 "Unless a person is born again from above, he or she cannot  see the kingdom of God."

    

       3. The first birth involved a human mother. Being born made it possible to life on this earth. If we connect John 3 to Galatians 4, then maybe we can say that being born again from above makes it possible for us to live in the Jerusalem that is above.

Conclusions:

I have a mother. I was born from above, where she is. I was born by the Holy Spirit since He has the power to create life. However, I have a motherland, so to speak. She is the Jerusalem that is above, the heavenly Jerusalem.   This should give us great comfort as we pass through this world. This world is not my home, I'm just a passin' through, as the old Gospel song says. We have a home, and she is our mother, our patria- the Jerusalem that is above. 

  I'll end with a C.S. Lewis quote, and then a Scripture to consider.

"If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy the only logical explanation is I was made for another world"

5. Colossians 3 English Standard Version (ESV)

Put On the New Self

3 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.
3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ who is your[a] life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
----------------------------------

I now understand the Heavenly Jerusalem to be synonymous with the Church, my Mother. I don't have to wait until Heaven to be joined with her. She is my true home. 

Believing Someone vs. Believing in Someone - 2 - G.E.M. Anscombe

Below will be found another quote from the article Faith. Anscombe is addressing the problem of making a group of learned men the sole guardians of faith. It is fine to have such men carefully guarding the faith - the Catholic faith in Anscombe's context - but did they really know and control all that is to be said and experienced about it? I love the phrase "scattered through different learned heads." These learned heads' faith was not more valuable in God's eyes than the faith of the most simple believer.

Her paragraph below shows that Catholicism is indeed populist as well as intellectual and rational. Truth of the Gospel should be as widely broadcast as possible and believed by everyone no matter their station in life.


Here is the quote from the book Faith in a Hard Ground - article on Faith - p. 42 where Anscombe is talking about certain changes that the Catholic Church had made.


What about the faith of the simple? They could not know all these things. Did they then have some inferior brand of faith? Surely not! And anyway, did those who studied really think they knew all these things? No: but the implication was that the knowledge was there somehow, perhaps scattered through different learned heads, perhaps merely theoretically and abstractly available. In the belief that this was so, on was being rational in having faith. But then it had to be acknowledged that all this was problematic - and so adherence to faith was really a matter of hanging on, and both its being a gift and its voluntariness would at this point be stressed.

Here's the punchline.:

For everyone is to have faith, and their learning doesn't give them a superior kind of faith. Everyone is to run; and few are road sweepers.

Isn't she calling the learned men the road sweepers, the ones who clean up messes and make the road a safer place? Not sure, but all of us - simple and learned - have to run the race of faith.

I will ask this, even though Anscombe did not. Who do we keep an eye on as we run? Jesus Himself, of course. He is also our closest Friend and Companion in the race, cheering us on and picking us up when we fall. He must be close or we could not look to Him as we run. He is as close as close can be.

Hebrews 12 English Standard Version (ESV)

Jesus, Founder and Perfecter of Our Faith

12 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

Believing Somebody vs. Believing in Somebody

G.E.M. Anscombe wrote two papers, one called What it is to Believe Someone and the other  Faith. They can both be found in the book Faith in a Hard Ground, which I purchased from iTunes.

Here is what she said about the Biblical phrase, "Abraham believed God."

Even in this rather well-known context where the words appear plainly, they are not attended to...Abraham believed God...Rather, we are deluged with rubbish about "believing in" as opposed to "believing that."

Like the chorus of animals in Orwell, there is a claque chanting "believing in goo-ood, believing that ba-ad."

- What it is to Believe Someone - p. 30 of Faith in a Hard Ground


I am not sure all that she was trying to say, since her arguments are very sophisticated and I can't follow it all. However, the gist of it is that when we say we believe in someone, we are really not saying much of anything.


We are just repeating what we have been told to repeat, like irrational animals. It is fashionable to say that we believe in someone, but that is not good enough. Even though it is assumed that the phrase "believing in" is good, what does it mean? It is as if "believing that" were a bad phrase that should not even be used.

However, Abraham is the gold standard of faith. He is the father of all who believe God. It is said of him, "Abraham believed God'. So, it cannot be a bad thing for a person to simply say that they believe God.


Anscombe's idea, I think, is brilliant. Why not just say I believe you, or I believe that what you say is true instead of the overly vague, sentimental "I believe in you." In her articles, Anscombe develops the idea of what it means to believe someone, and then applies it to a Christian's belief in God. Brilliant stuff. 

I have started to use the phrases "I believe" and "I believe that" in my own communications. Here is another quote from the article where Anscombe talks about the clarity of using phrases that begin with "believe that" when talking about our faith. 




Still, the phrase "I believe in you" is kind of sweet, but what does it mean? I suppose it does imply that there is a relationship, and not just mere intellectual assent to a set of beliefs. Believe in, in the case of God, may be a more intense, more personal kind of belief than just believe by itself. However, it has to also involve "I believe God.'  

Her two articles on the subject have made me think, and I am enjoying that. I don't think she was saying that "believe in" is never appropriate, but that it is over used and often devoid of real meaning. 


It is clear that the topic that I introduced of "believing somebody" is in the middle of our target. - G.E.M. Anscombe (from the article Faith - p. 45-Faith in a Hard Ground)

I think it is clear as well. 

This needs a little more development and a few more quotes to back up what I am saying. Later...

I'm not sure what she thinks of me. Mom, I'm tryin' to be good, I really am.