Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child

I don't know if the interpretation of a song can be more perfect than this one of Mahalia Jackson singing Summertime/Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child. It is sublime, a word that I generally reserve for a few of Mozart's adagios and arias.  There are several good interpretations of this song on You Tube, and several very bad ones.

Nana Mouskouri is amazing, but not so much on Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child. Seriously, Nana? Please don't try that again. Loved you on Song for Liberty in Spanish - just before Chile's return to democracy - , but not on this.

Marianne Anderson is great, of course, but not as great as Jackson on this song. Mahalia owns it.

Now why am I attracted to this song - or rather this blending of two songs?  I call it a blending of two songs rather than a medley. Most medleys are too obviously, well, medleys - two or more songs thrown together in an imperfect oneishness. This Summertime/Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child is a perfect blending of two songs into one. So, why this blending, then? Why am I drawn to it?


1.) For one thing, I am a motherless child, even though I am quite adult. My mom passed away last May, and I am not sure how to grieve for her. It's a long story. At the end she was very ill, and ready to meet Jesus face to face. So, I am happy for her now. There is more, but those thoughts and feelings run too deep to express right now.

So, they find some expression through this song.

2.)  We are part of a missionary organization that works with orphans, widows, poor families, and more.  My husband and son-in-law spent most of the month of August in Africa visiting our colleagues.  One of the photos that he brought home has haunted me. It is of a group of children with beautiful smiling faces.

The back story is that these children are AIDS orphans that some of our colleagues care for. Even more than that, these children themselves also HIV positive. Words fail me.



3.) I have been thinking a lot lately about motherhood. I hope to be able to verbalize some of that in my Lilith series. For now I will just say that  my tradition, which is mainline Evangelical, we don't seem to have a mother or a father - a patriarch or a matriarch. Now I'm being weird again, but in my faith tradition I feel somewhat like a motherless child.

Lilith, the Free - 2

Lilith, the Free - 2

In my first post, I talked about 3 areas where Lilith, the anti-wife and anti-mother of Jewish myth, tried to gain her freedom. I'll tackle the anti-wife, freedom from marriage issue first.  I am using the name Lilith to describe what much of feminism has promoted at least since the 60s.  What I am calling Lilith feminism has dominated the whole women's movement for decades now. I will explain why I believe that to be true.

In 1970, the phrase "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" became popular, even though most thought it to be outrageous. Here is a little history of the origin of that saying.:

Gloria Steinem had this to say in a letter she wrote toTime magazine in autumn 2000:

"In your note on my new and happy marital partnership with David Bale, you credit me with the witticism 'A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.' In fact, Irina Dunn, a distinguished Australian educator, journalist and politician, coined the phrase back in 1970 when she was a student at the University of Sydney. She paraphrased the philosopher who said, 'Man needs God like fish needs a bicycle.' Dunn deserves credit for creating such a popular and durable spoof of the old idea that women need men more than vice versa."

Irina Dunn later confirmed Steinem's version of events, in January 2002:

""Yes, indeed, I am the one Gloria referred to. I was paraphrasing from a phrase I read in a philosophical text I was reading for my Honours year in English Literature and Language in 1970. It was 'A man needs God like a fish needs a bicycle'. My inspiration arose from being involved in the renascent women's movement at the time, and from being a bit of a smart-arse. I scribbled the phrase on the backs of two toilet doors, would you believe, one at Sydney University where I was a student, and the other at Soren's Wine Bar at Woolloomooloo, a seedy suburb in south Sydney. The doors, I have to add, were already favoured graffiti sites."

- The Phrase Finder

The message that came across loud and clear is that women do not need men. Men may need women, but we women can stand alone without the help of a man. We can be independent, not needing to rely on a male for support, either economically or emotionally. Yes, if we choose to be with a man, that is fine. We just do not really need men. Women can make it on our own.

In fact, in that same year of 1970,  sitcom The Mary Tyler Moore Show began airing and ran until 1977. This show is credited with changing television. In it, Mary is a single woman in her 30s who goes to Minneapolis to get away from a failed love affair. She finds that she can make it on her own as a single, professional woman in the big city.

The theme song for the show is Love Is All Around. The last line of the song is.: You're gonna' make it after all. How was Mary gonna' make it? She would make it without getting married is what it boiled down to. In the series, she had some love interests, but she never married. The message is that if beautiful Mary could make it on her own, so can any woman. Marriage was optional, maybe even undesirable for women. Here is how Mary would make it, according to the song.

How will you make it on your own?

This world is awfully big, girl this time you're all alone

But it's time you started living

It's time you let someone else do some giving

She would make it all by herself. She was mature enough to not need a man. The only thing is that in the show, she had friends who helped her through all of her difficulties, especially her best friend, Rhoda. Also, the father figure, Lou, was always there to support her. So, she really did not do it alone, she just did it without a husband.

So, in a way, in large part due to that little fish and bicycle phrase and a television sitcom, Lilith, the anti-wife,  was unleashed on society. Women were now encouraged to find a good life outside of marriage. Yes, many women had their own careers even before women like Mary, Irina Dunn and Gloria Steinem came on the scene. However, this was a new twist. Women now could avoid the entanglements of marriage and be their own, independent person. It's time women quit being little girls and started living as mature, independent women. Let someone else give of themselves.

Give of themselves in what? Give of themselves by getting married and having a family, I assume. That was what most women up until that time had aimed for as they matured from being little girls to being grown up women.

The assumption, which I believe to be false, is that married women are somehow not free. We married women are weaker and may need men to give our lives meaning. Independent, mature women can make it on their own.

Also, there is an assumption that women who follow a profession are "making it", whatever that means. A corollary is that women who are married are not really making it. Again, making what?

Whatever the "it" is or was, it was superior to being tied down to one man for life in holy matrimony.

Run the clock forward to 2000 and Destiny's Child song Independent Women. It was part of the soundtrack for Charlie's Angels. I actually like the song fine as songs go. I would take it as a kind of tongue in cheek description of the rich, beautiful woman who can buy whatever she wants and have any man she wants. Newsflash, girls. There are very few women who actually fit that category. The Independent Woman is largely a myth.

It is odd that women like June Cleaver or Donna Reed are considered to have impossibly unrealistic lifestyles. Yes, they are sitcom characters with certain values that are now out of fashion. However, look at the Independent Woman. Is she real, at least for the majority of women? I say that she is not. In fact, in an absolute sense, June and Donna are more real, since they model beautiful, even Christian ideals of love, self-sacrifice, and marital harmony.

The message is unrealistic at best and downright dangerous at worst.  How many women are able to be truly independent like the song suggests? Very few people, male or female, are able to live according to the unrealistic and self-centered expectations shown in the song. Here are some of the words.

Question: Tell me what you think about me

I buy my own diamonds and I buy my own rings

Only ring your cell-y when I'm feelin lonely

When it's all over please get up and leave

Question: Tell me how you feel about this

Try to control me boy you get dismissed

Pay my own fun, oh and I pay my own bills

Always 50/50 in relationships

The chorus goes like this.:

All the women who are independent

Throw your hands up at me

All the honeys who makin' money

Throw your hands up at me

All the mommas who profit dollas

Throw your hands up at me

All the ladies who truly feel me

Throw your hands up at me

In the fantasy world of Hollywood, this song somehow makes sense. However, in the real world of single mothers and lonely, aging, single professional women, the words start to sound pretty hollow. They taunt vast numbers of women who tried to go it alone.

Yes, there are many women who sacrifice the ideal of marriage for a different ideal of service to God and fellow human beings. Yes, there are many women who tried to be married and for one reason or another, things did not work out. However, that does not account for the tendency in our day for young women to avoid marriage altogether. They are acting out the kind of message found in the song Independent Women. Some people call this progress. Others call it what it is - an almost total disaster for large numbers of lonely, single women who cannot find a real man to spend their old age with. Many of these women are also raising children on their own, and cashing government-issued checks.

Here is the Urban Dictionary's definition of the term Independent Woman.:

A woman who pays her own bills, buys her own things, and DOES NOT allow a man to affect her stability or self-confidence. She supports her self on her own entirely and is proud to be able to do so.

Man 1: DAMN I ALWAYS HAVE TO BUY MY GIRL STUFF!!!

Man 2: Sorry I don't know how that feels...I have an Independent Women.

Man 1: WORD? Does she have and independent friend??

See here that there are men who would love to be taken care of by a rich woman. I'm not saying that it is bad for a woman with money to help out or even support her family.  That concept is ancient, even.  The Proverbs 31 princess in the Bible was also a shrewd businesswoman. So, I am not saying that men have to pay for everything while women get a free ride.

The issue with the Independent Women has to do with women being taught that they do not need anyone, let alone a man, to do anything for them. Remember 16th Century John Donne's poem No Man is an Island?

'No Man is an Island'

No man is an island entire of itself;

every man is a piece of the continent,

a part of the main;

if a clod be washed away by the sea,

Europe is the less,

as well as if a promontory were,

as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were;

any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.

And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

The IW is in danger of becoming stranded on a  desert island, all alone in the great sea of humanity. From "no man is an island" we progress towards "women can be islands, entirely unto themselves."  The metaphorical and mythical Lilith would call that freedom. In fact, it is very possible that the bell will not even toll when the true IW passes from this life to the next. She will have to go it alone. 

Yes, there have been powerful women throughout human history who have been independently wealthy. I don't think that they are like the ideal independent woman portrayed in the song Independent Women or Dunn's famous phrase. Women like Queen Victoria or Isabel  la Catolica were wealthy women, but they were also married to strong men. They did not reject their role as wife and mother. They ruled as matriarchs caring for their people and advancing the interests of their realms. They did not use their power selfishly. Unfortunately, this kind of royal matriarchy is out of fashion. Progressive Lilith does not like women who dare to be Princesses or Queen mothers.

If the message of Independent Women were followed to the letter, then a woman may have all the sexual partners she wishes to have, but without a slavish attachment to one man. No one can tell her she is doing something wrong in making the choices she makes.  She has money which empowers her to do as she pleases. This is a far cry from what has been understood traditionally as a strong, independently wealthy woman. It is poles apart from what used to be thought of as a strong woman - the matriarch of the family who ruled her household well.

I found an interesting article from a Jewish woman's website. It is called Sarah in the Bible. It shows how ancient the concept of strong, matriarchal women is. This kind of woman is undervalued, and even despised in our day of progress towards the free Lilith ideal. Here is what the author, Rachael Gelfman Schultz, says about the matriarch of the Jewish people.

"Biblical Sarah, Abraham’s wife and the matriarch of the Jewish people, is a strong and independent character. When she cannot have children, Sarah takes the initiative and gives her maid-servant, Hagar, to Abraham so that he can have children through Hagar on Sarah’s behalf."

The author goes on to explain, using other examples from her life, how Sarah could show such strength as a woman in a patriarchal society. While I do not agree with everything in the article, I find it interesting that someone else sees Sarah as a strong, matriarchal woman - something that I have thought for a long time.

Many Christian commentators seem to think she was a weak-willed, super-submissive women with little or no personality of her own. I don't see that at all. In fact, that is how I see women in patriarchal societies - strong matriarchs who rule their households sometimes with great power and influence. Sarah was a strong woman who believed God and chose to submit to her husband and the calling he had from God. The fact that she was a strong woman makes her submission even more astounding. She had character and faith. (1 Peter 3:1-6) Many Christians turn the 1 Peter passage into a kind of fetish, saying incredibly stupid things about how women are supposed to act in order to be just like Sarah. Many fail to look at the real Sarah of the  Bible to find out how she really acted and the kind of woman God was commending as an ideal woman.

On the other hand, Lilith seems to have set herself free at last in the form of the progressive, independent woman. Check out the online resources that tell about the Lilith myth and maybe you will see what I am trying to say.

Of course, I have to add that not all independent women are living promiscuous, selfish lifestyles. In fact, there are many Christian women who believe God has called them to be single and celibate for one reason or another, at least for now. I lived that lifestyle until I was 28. For me, it was a bit like the Norwegian bachelor farmers - pure, mostly - which may or may not count as pure. I just have to say that I love being married.

Also, there are many career women who also give themselves to their roles as wife and mother. 

Lilith is a specific kind of independent woman, one who does not believe in marriage. 

More later.

Getting My Feet Wet

Like I said earlier, we just got back from the Holy Land. One of our first stops while there was along the Mediterranean Sea at a place called [I forgot!] We were there to see the ruins of some great something built by somebody. I was there to see something else.

I had just read in the Chesterton book about the life of Thomas Aquinas that as a young child, a teacher was astounded to hear the boy ask, "What is God?"

If I had been teaching him, I would have said something like God is not a "what", He is a "who", which is not a terrible answer. However, I would not have addressed little Thomas' question, and he would not and should not have been satisfied with my answer.

We know from Thomas the man that this question was a driving force in his life. What is God? One of the five basic answers he found by observing creation had to do with motion. Thomas' ability to look at simple things and see great concepts was a kind of trademark of his, I understand.

Thomas said about motion:

"For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality."

Potentiality has to do with what an object is able to do. Actuality is related to what an object actually is moved to do or to be.

Think about it in relation to heat and fire, as Thomas did. Here is what he said.:

"Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it."

His reasoning goes deeper as he works his develops this concept. First, something that is moved cannot move itself, it cannot be both mover and moved. In fact, we could apply this mover and moved, potentiality and actuality concept  infinitely, were it not for one thing. Here's the punch like, so to speak.:

""Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

Pause and think calmly about that!  Selah!  Whammo!


Think about it in relation to a seed. Think about it in relation to a human child. Think about it in relation to the movement of water - which is what I did as I put my foot into the Mediterranean Sea and watched the motion of the water and light. Potentiality to actuality pointing me to the First Mover.


This was and is a concept that thrilled me and continues to thrill me even after many days. So simple, yet so foundational to our understanding of God.


We look at the motion of trees, and reason back to the wind that is making the trees move - or the earthquake, or whatever other phenomenon is causing the movement. Few of us look farther to see what caused the motion itself.  As we continue to reason back to the causes of motion, we arrive at the undeniable fact that there was a first mover, or we should if we are thinking rationally.

God is the First Mover who set everything else into motion. Reason leads us to a first Mover, or we lose touch with reason altogether, as many have done in our day.  Without a First Mover,  potentiality to actuality does not make sense.  Motion then would become like a never ending loop of random information with no real meaning behind it - which is where the post modern mind is at.


The full argument for the existence of God based on motion can be found in his Summa Theologica (Third Article [I, Q.2, Art.3]).

So, I put my foot into Thomism on that beach along the Israeli coast. I will never be the same again. I feel like a child being led around by a great lumbering ox of a man willing to show me what he has been shown. In fact, I could have given this blog the title of A Child's View From the Back of the Ox, but that sounds a bit cumbersome. Besides, why would a child be sitting on the back of an ox in the first place? On the other hand, flies love to attach themselves to oxen, but that's not a very pretty picture, either.

Anyway, I fear I might be mixing metaphors. A Child with Flies Riding on an Ox? No, I'll stick with View From the Cacho del Buey, but I also see myself as a child playing on the edges the great ocean of Christian philosophy, finding little bits of shells and beach glass to marvel at, and Thomas showing me that there is a great big ocean out there to explore. "Look deeper and farther, and do not fear where God may take us," he says.

No, I'm not hearing voices or seeing visions, but as I read Thomas, I feel like I'm getting to know a real person. Maybe that's a girl thing, since we are all about relationships.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 3 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason. We observe that all things that move are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements themselves, the stronger moves the weaker; and even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be traced back into infinity. For everything that is moved by another is a sort of instrument of the first mover. Therefore, if a first mover is lacking, all things that move will be instruments. But if the series of movers and things moved is infinite, there can be no first mover. In such a case, these infinitely many movers and things moved will all be instruments. But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it is to suppose that instruments are moved, unless they are set in motion by some principal agent. This would be like fancying that, when a chest or a bed is being built, the saw or the hatchet performs its functions without the carpenter. Accordingly there must be a first mover that is above all the the rest; and this being we call God.

Why Cacho del Buey?

Vamos arando dijo la mosca sentada arriba del cacho del buey.

This is a saying that I learned in Chile. Actually, Wikipedia lists this as a Chilean proverb and uses the plural of cacho - los cachos. I will explain why I am using the singular - el cacho - but first let me attempt a free translation of the proverb. I am sure that there is an English equivalent saying, but I'll just go with my own creative translation of this one.

So, here goes the translation first, along with a great deal of poetic licence, and a little story.

"Let's get going!  We have some plowing to do, dear Ox!"  That's what the little fly said to the great Ox as she was sitting on top of one of his giant horns.  The Ox, in his humility as great and generous as his large body, kindly allowed Mosca, the little fly, to find a seat. "Get comfortable, dear little Mosca," he said. 'We have a long way to go. We will never see things the same way again if we head out. I am following the Way that is Way itself. I am plowing new ground, but it is really not new at all. Let's get going, little fly friend. My pace is slow but steady."

Okay, so, I just got back from a trip to the Holy Land, and my internal clock is all messed up. To make matters worse, today we return to standard time here in the US - except Arizona, which is always on standard time. It will take me days to reset my clock. Meanwhile, I will probably be getting up in the middle of the night to blog about things I don't understand and making up stories about people I do not know.

My point in using the little ox and fly metaphor is the following - more or less. Before I go any farther, I want to say that my ideas are mine alone - which will probably be more than obvious to anyone who reads this. This is part of my personal journey, as people like to say in our day. I suppose that it is a kind of philosophical and theological pilgrimage. So, by using important words like philosophical, theological, and pilgrimage, I may give my scrawlings greater weight.

You see, shortly before we left on our Holy Land pilgrimage, a kind friend introduced me to two wonderful traveling companions - besides my dear husband and the 20 other people who were with us on the trip. One was St. Thomas Aquinas and the other G.E.M. Anscombe. Well, there is a third, actually, in G.K. Chesterton who wrote a fine little biography of Thomas.

Here is what Chesterton said about Thomas.:

"St. Thomas was a huge heavy bull of a man, fat and slow and quiet; very mild 
and magnanimous but not very sociable; shy, even apart from the humility of 
holiness; and abstracted, even apart from his occasional and carefully concealed 
experiences of trance or ecstasy."

(Christian Classics Etherial Library)

Later Thomas' classmates called him a dumb ox, since he seemed to be clueless in his studies.

Here is Chesterton's description of Thomas as a student.

"Among the students thronging into the lecture-rooms there was one student, conspicuous by his tall and bulky figure, and completely failing or refusing to be conspicuous for anything else. He was so dumb in the debates that his fellows began to assume an American significance in the word dumbness; for in that land it is a synonym for dullness. It is clear that, before long, even his imposing stature began to have only the ignominious immensity of the big boy left behind in the lowest form. He was called the Dumb Ox. He was the object, not merely of mockery, but of pity."

(CCEL)

The lecturer and schoolmaster, Albertus Magnus - and I have no idea who he was - began to work with the Ox. He then said, "You call him a Dumb Ox: I tell you this Dumb Ox shall bellow so loud that his bellowings will fill the world".

...and they did.

In fact, Thomas has had many disciples throughout the centuries. One of those was a woman named G.M.E. Anscombe, said to be the greatest woman philosopher of the 20th century. Sometimes I wonder why a woman of her stature would have to be put into the category of women philosophers and then judged the greatest. After all, philosophy is not football or tennis. I do not see that her being a woman would have put her at some kind of disadvantage when compared to males of the same category.

I wonder who she thought was her equal among the male philosophers of her day, and if she thought she was less than they were just because she was a woman. In fact, I would guess that she had quite an advantage over the men, given the fact that she was the mother of 7 children!  This would have given her a distinct and definite advantage, I would think. Anyway, that's how things go, and maybe making special categories for men and women in such disciplines as philosophy is all right and good, but still I wonder why.

Now I am reminded of a couple of years that I spent in discussion on a theology group online. One of my friends - and I had maybe 2 or 3 on the whole group of several hundred men - dared to see potential in me as a woman and told me that I was the best woman who had ever been in the group. Actually, I think I held my own with the guys when it was a fair fight - which it wasn't always. I did not feel as thought I needed to be part of a special category called women, nor did I feel like I was just one of the guys. Anyway, that's water under the bridge, and I had a good time skewering some arguments until they squealed and died - at least in my mind.

Years before the theology group I had been on another group, but I made a huge mistake. The moderator said frequently that he was open to discussion about anything he said. One time he started to promote a certain book, telling us that we should read it and then he would discuss it. So, silly girl me, I took him at his word. I read the book, which was so full of  internal contradictions, not to mention theological errors, that it was quite easy to demolish, even for someone like me who has never studied logic and who has an undergrad understanding of theology. He refused to discuss it with me, and even tried to humiliate me. Not long after that he wanted me banned from the group. I am not sure how or why, but we broke one another's hearts - at least someone told me a long time later that I had broken his heart. I know he broke mine. Not sure how or why that happened, but I cannot turn back the clock.

Why did I share that? I don't know why. He's gone home now. Rest in peace. See you in the morning.

Now cracks a noble heart.Good night sweet prince:
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!

Maybe women should not invade the realm of males, like theology or philosophy. Theology may very well be the domain of males, and women should keep a safe distance. Men do theology like they do football.  Men go to war over theology, even. I am reminded of mountain goats in the Canadian Rockies who bash their heads together over and over again in order to show which one is superior. Often, like Mountain Goats, no one really wins, but they all bellow. Now, that may be unkind, but it makes me smile to think of theology in those terms. I can let go of theology and allow the men to dominate that field.

But what about philosophy? To me it seems that women are well suited to philosophy in the sense of being lovers of wisdom. After all, the Bible even personifies Wisdom as a woman. (see Proverbs 4) Wisdom is certainly part of our domain, and we can be generous in allowing men to share in our wisdom as well.

Also, as I think many already know, the Greek word for wisdom is the feminine noun, sophia - σοφία. 

I know that formal philosophy is much more complex than that. It has to do with formulating logical arguments in a serious way. It is a fine science as well as an art. For me, that will not be something I am able to do well. However, by focusing on two great Christian philosophers - Aquinas and Anscombe - I will be better off as a human being than before I started this journey. One is a man and a Saint. The other is a woman and the mother of 7 children - a true feminist. 

Also, I want to read them - Aquinas and Anscombe - in their own words, with translation of course in the case of Aquinas. I am not so interested in reading about them right now, except for the very fine book by Chesterton on St. Thomas Aquinas. 

So, Anscombe has become a focus of interest for me, along with her teacher, Aquinas.

...and I'm probably all wrong about many things, but I want to know the truth - or rather, the One who is Truth. As Chesterton said, "...the appetite for truth may outlast and even devour all the duller appetites of man."  ...or woman for that matter.

So, this little Mosca is going to sit on top of the cacho of that great Buey and enjoy the view and the ride.

5 

Lilith, the Free - Part 1

Okay, so anyone who knows me knows that I tend to have some pretty unpopular ideas about what it means to be a woman, wife, and mother. In reality, what I think about these subjects pretty much line up with traditional Christianity, which ideas are extremely unpopular at this point in time. I have never quite gotten over the image and ideal of a woman like June Cleaver. Sure, no one can live up to that image, but it is a beautiful one.

You have a loving and wise wife and mother in June. She was always willing to help her husband and sons work through whatever difficulties they were facing in life. Her husband and children, as well as an assortment of neighbor children and family friends respected her. Her husband trusted her, and he listened to her counsel.

I understand that Barbara Billingsly, the actress who played June Cleaver, was very much like that in real life. Jerry Mathers, the actor who played Beaver, has talked about how Barbara was a lot like a mother to him. So, why should I think that June Cleaver could never be a real person?  Of course, the television series was a gentle comedy, so it did not assault our senses and sensibilities like some shows do. So, I think we  as women would do well to honor June Cleaver.  Why would it be such a bad thing to model her values in our lives? 

St. John Chrysostom influenced my understanding of marriage and family life as well. He was able by the grace of God to do such a fine job of laying out a vision for Christian marriage because of his dear friend, St. Olympia. She was a widow and one of John's best buddies- or that's how I like to imagine it. I can see them sitting together, out in an olive garden, drinking tea and talking the most important, the deepest kind of philosophy - how human relations mirror the relationship between Christ and the Church. How I wish I could have been a fly on the wall, listening in on their conversations! The result of their deep friendship and mutual respect was Chrysostom's fine series of homilies On Marriage and Family Life. 

I want to be a Christian wife and mother - and now grandmother. Unfortunately, what I will call my inner Lilith gets in the way of that goal a lot more than I care to acknowledge. So, as I talk about the Lilith myth, please bear in mind that I am mostly talking about myself. Please forgive me if you read this and feel minimized or hurt in any way. That is not my intention at all. this is part of my journey to understand and live out my freedom in Christ as His little girl. 

So, here goes. Again, I beg your kindness and even forgiveness if I say anything that comes across as harsh or unkind. 

Besides, I may be wrong, but I think that I am at least finding the center of where I need to be.  Here goes. Here is how I understand Lilith. 

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

 Lilith cries freedom and equality.

1. Freedom from marriage.

2. Freedom from motherhood.

3. Freedom from any symbol of her place in God's created order.

Lilith says that her humanity does not depend on being a wife and a mother. Her humanness is something else. Setting herself free from what she believes to be accidents of femininity is what Lilith gives herself to. In fact, women should not even worry about what  femininity means. It is society and culture that impose their ideas of who women are and what we should be doing. It is men who wish to oppress women, keeping us as a permanent underclass. 

For Lilith, being a wife is not part of essential human nature. Being a mother is not an essential part of being a human being either. She especially despises the very idea of putting some kind of symbolic covering on her head. For Lilith, the very idea that there could be some kind of male authority over her is repulsive. In fact, Lilith rejects all forms of hierarchy. 

Women who submit to the helpmeet role and the mothering role are in grave danger of being abused, according to Lilith. Such women will not be able to meet their full human potential. Lilith has set herself free from such oppressive ideas. 

If you Google "Lilith", you will see many interesting articles on the subject of the Lilith myth. My blogging is not meant in any way to be an academic exercise - something I would not be able to pull off even if I wanted to. This is part of my personal journey, and I invite you to come along with me if you like. 

Lilith, to me, is  a personification of what feminism has come to mean in our society. Lilith is why many of us women avoid identifying ourselves as feminists, even those of us who are very concerned about the  equality of women.  Personally, I  see being a helpmeet and a mother as an essential part of my femininity, not accidents. If I am able, I will try to explain why, and why Lilith is getting it wrong. 

Magnificat Challenge

Magnificat Challenge

Magnificat Challenge:

Why not take some time to memorize Mary's Song, the Magnificat, in Luke 1:46-56? As you memorize, meditate on all of the qualities of God that Mary mentions in this passage. Notice, too, that Mary focuses her  praise and her attention on God and what He was doing for her. We tend to focus on Mary and what she was thinking and going through at that time in her life. Mary's focus was Godward.

Mary was a great woman of faith. All generations have called her blessed, just as she prophesied in her song. At her young age - some say that she may have been as young as 13 years old - God revealed Himself to her in a spectacular way. Even though she was probably illiterate, she knew about God, and she knew God. That does not mean that Mary was a perfect woman, as some teach. She was also a sinner who rejoiced in God, her Savior. However, in spite of the fact that she shared in the same fallen nature as all mankind, God showed Himself to be correct in the choice He made of a mother for His Son. She is a wonderful example of faith for all believers. She was also a woman of great integrity.  She is my sister in Christ, and I hope someday to meet her face to face in Glory.

Women in our society and in our time have a very different kind of life than the one Mary lived. It is now common for women to get a formal education even beyond the high school level. Many now go to university, when in times past, women were denied such opportunities. I am not against women going to university, though I believe that a college education is way over priced and over rated. Notice, though, that the most blessed of all women who have ever lived did not have any formal education.

Notice that I did not say she was uneducated. Obviously Mary had a deep knowledge of what was  most important. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, and she feared God.

Proverbs 1:7

English Standard Version (ESV)

7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;

    fools despise wisdom and instruction.

If a Christian woman does not fear the Lord, then all the education in the world will not give her true knowledge. Besides, if in the pursuit of knowledge on a college campus, a woman forgets who she is and what she was made for, then her time and her money have been wasted.  As women, we were created for a purpose.  If we forget that, and just serve the purposes of a secular society, we are in danger of losing ourselves.

Imagine what would have happened if Mary had told God that she was not interested in being the mother of His Son. What if Mary had thought that raising children was not enough of a challenge for women? What if she had decided that motherhood was not for her, and that she wanted to do something greater with her life, even thought God was calling her to be a special mother?

I know that not all women are called to get married, or even to have children of their own.  One of my spiritual mothers was a single woman who believed she was called by God to teach.  I wrote about Miss Harrison awhile back. 

So, God used this wise, yet uneducated young woman, as the mother of our Lord.  In that way she blessed all of us. In a day such as ours that downplays the child-bearing role, and gives a woman effective ways to avoid or curtail pregnancy, where would Mary have fit in? She would not have been elected to public office. She would not have been the CEO of a corporation. She would not have gotten into college, let alone grad school. She would not have been any of the things that post-modern women aspire to. She might be called a baby machine or trailer trash if she were alive today.

So, I think that it would be good for every Christian to memorize this short passage of Scripture. Her wisdom, knowledge of God, faith expressed in simple trust of the One she already knew so well, and her integrity speak to all of us. Take some time to meditate on the lessons learned from Mary's example, too.

I am not saying that a woman should not  get a formal education.  I am not saying that only mothers can be used of God. I am just pointing out that the woman most blessed by God did not have any of the opportunities that we women have in our day, yet she was greatly used by God.  I also think that we Christian women need to make sure that our values are informed by Scripture and the fear of the Lord.

Proverbs 1:7

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Luke 1

Mary’s Song of Praise: The Magnificat (English Standard Version)

46And Mary said,

"My soul magnifies the Lord,

47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

48for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.

For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;

49for he who is mighty has done great things for me,

and holy is his name.

50And his mercy is for those who fear him

from generation to generation.

51 He has shown strength with his arm;

he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;

52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones

and exalted those of humble estate;

53he has filled the hungry with good things,

and the rich he has sent away empty.

54He has helped his servant Israel,

in remembrance of his mercy,

55 as he spoke to our fathers,

to Abraham and to his offspring forever."

56And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her home.

The organ at St. Mary's church, Rochester, NY.

Help and Healing after Abortion

From April, 2013

Help and Healing after Abortion

I found a wonderful website called After Abortion.org.  Check it out.  There are  many lies being told to women, and  much cover up of the real effects of abortion on women.  After Abortion.org is one place where women are telling the truth about abortion.  Abortion is not good for women at all.  On this website, women are given a number of helpful resources if they are struggling emotionally after having had an abortion.  There are articles written by women who had abortions at some time during their lives, but later had deep regret for what they had done.

The stories are sad, of course, but also hopeful.  The brave women who share have found help and are in the process of healing from the emotional scars they suffered because of their abortions. Their pain has a name. It is Post Abortion Stress Syndrome.

Of course, pro-abortion groups allege that PASS does not exist.  I find that to be very odd.  Such a cold, callous attitude reminds me of  when doctors used to tell  women that pain during their periods was not real.  It didn't matter how many women said that they had pain - a lot of pain.  Doctors denied the existence of things like cramps.

I would suggest that the women who are suffering anxiety, sadness, guilt, and shame because of their abortions need to be listened to and helped.  Some health care professionals are telling them that  their pain is meaningless, or that they need to just get over it.  Abortion is just a normal part of life for many women, and they just have to accept it as normal. That is the answer Planned Parenthood gives on their website to women.

Sure. Maybe not all women will feel bad about their abortions.  For the sake of argument, let's say that only a small minority of women suffer from stress after their abortions.  Fine.  What does that have to do with those who are suffering, or even suicidal because of what they did or what was done to them?   Nothing at all.  How can those who deny the existence of the condition called Post Abortion Stress Syndrome justify their harsh treatment of women who are suffering emotional scars from the procedure called abortion?

I suspect, just by the women I have talked to, that PASS is very common. A growing number of women are finding the courage to write about what they have gone through.  The purpose of their sharing is to help other women who may be suffering the same kinds of symptoms  they are. Shouldn't the abortion proponents at least acknowledge that these women are real?  If Planned Parenthood and other organizations are really concerned about women's health, as they claim, then shouldn't they show some concern for the women who are suffering from PASS and other post abortion related conditions?  It is easy for PP to  say that PASS is a condition that was made up by the pro life community in an effort to undermine the good work that the pro abortion groups are doing.  PP's views on PASS are posted at their website.  They basically brush it off, since the American Psychiatric Assoc.  doesn't recognize PASS as a real condition.

The APA's reaction could be because they do not have enough cases to study at this time.  It may very well be something that women are just beginning to come to terms with.  Society has been telling women that abortion is legal and that they have a right to make that choice.  It may  take time for most women to find the courage to talk about it.  Also, counselors may not be able to fully recognize the symptoms if they have been taught that women suffer no emotional damage because of their abortions.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates seem way too anxious to ignore the pleas for help.  Or, if they recognize that women can feel bad about their abortions, they are quick to tell women that what they did was the right decision at the time.  Somehow, though, the doubts and regret continue to haunt women who have bought into the pro abortion apologists' simplistic answers to their deep questions.  How do abortionists want women to handle their emotional responses?  Just accept that abortion is a normal part of life, it is legal, and don't let the anti choice people guilt trip you. I will not link PP's website to my blog, but they are easy to find online. Their position on PASS is shockingly heartless and cruel.

I don't think that the PP kind of answers helps at all.  It is like telling women to ignore their mothering instincts - which is impossible.  We cannot ignore or change who we are by natural design.

The Debate About When Life Begins

From April, 2013 -

The debate about when life begins.

I found this quote at The Survival Doctor's website.  I don't know much about this site, but I found the article When Does Life Beging?  to be very well done.

I think that the following conclusion is scientifically irrefutable.  

"The defining characteristic of mammalian life, including human life, is the continuous process of development, which starts at fertilization and ends at death."

Here is a quote that I think shows one of the most glaring errors in the thinking of pro-choice proponents.

"“Pro-choice docs would say that it is not their business to determine for a patient when life begins,” says Diana Philip, interim executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers and its sister organization, the Abortion Conversation Project. “Ultimately each patient determines the value and definition of life and that definition lies within her own mind and heart.”

The pregnant woman is not the patient, as if she were ill and in need of a cure. Abortion cures nothing, since pregnancy is not a disease.


Then, to give mothers the power of life or death over their unborn child is extremely foolish. We can look back into history to a time when fathers were given the power of life or death over their children, as well as over their wives and slaves. This was the case with the paterfamilias of ancient Rome. Even Rome eventually saw that power too broad to give to one person, so they  put legal limitations on it. Why do we in our day find it wise to allow the mother to wield that same kind of  power over her own unborn children? Some would even go so far as to say that the mother of an infant should  be able to decide whether or not her child is allowed to continue to live. I am not talking about a very sick baby who has little chance of recovering.  That baby may even be on life support, with no hope of living. Yes, the mother may need to make a decision about when to turn off the life support systems.  That is not the kind of situation I am talking about.

I am talking about a mother deciding that her child that has been born healthy may be too much of a burden for her to care for. At this point in time, that scenario is not an option.  I certainly hope that the few who are suggesting such a thing never get their way.

It seems like a huge step backwards for civilization to be giving that kind of power of life and death to human beings, whether the human being whose life is threatened be unborn or newborn.


The one whose life is in danger is the unborn child in the womb of the mother who is considering ending the life of that child. Yes, there are rare cases when the life of the mother really is at stake. In those cases, if the baby is taken early, measures are taken to try to save both lives. Of course that scenario is not the norm for women seeking abortions. Generally, both mother and baby are  healthy, with no problems seen that would justify ending the pregnancy.


Pro-choice advocates always bring up the situation of rape or incest. Of course, it is not the same at all as the situation where abortion is merely used as a means of birth control. Besides, there are many testimonies of women who have become pregnant because they have been raped or because of incest and have decided to have their babies anyway. Why punish the baby for the crimes of another?

Also, all Christian communities teach that there is grace in Christ available to any woman suffering from the trauma of Post Abortion Syndrome. Any woman who

has, in a moment of desperation sought out an abortion needs to know that there is complete and total forgiveness in Christ. She does not have to bear the guilt and shame of that decision her whole life.
-------------------------------------

When Does Life Begin?

From April 2013

When does life begin?

I agree with the premise that life begins at conception. There are a number of reasons as to why I agree. Here are some.

1. The patient in question is not the mother of the unborn child, but rather the child himself or herself. It is the viability of that life that is being questioned - not at this time the viability of healthy adult women of child-bearing age.

2. It is dangerous to ask a mother about when the child she carries or carried became a human being. She is not qualified to know the answer to that question. What if she decides that her child is not fully human until he or she turns 21 years of age? Can she terminate the life of any child she deems to be sub-human or not human yet? A mother's answer may vary from one day to the next, depending on her emotional state if she is the one who is to look at her heart and decide whether or not her child is a viable human being.

3. The only safe definition for the beginning of life is that from the moment of conception, the human zygote is a human being. Why safe? First, it is the only theologically safe definition. if God has anything to say about it - and I believe He does - then we had better be careful not to offend Him. Until and unless He says otherwise, it is best to assume that the moment of conception is the moment when human life begins. All of us who are alive at this time can say that our lives began in our mothers' wombs. When did we begin to be formed if not at the moment of conception?

Second, it is the only safe definition for mothers to go by. What a terrible burden it is on women to be forced by society to decided when their child's life begins. I am sure that I am not the only one who has listened to women tell of the terrible burden of guilt and shame they have borne because someone convinced them that the baby they were carrying was not really human; or  someone coerced them into having an abortion. Post Abortion Stress Syndrome is very real, in spite of what many pro-choice women say to the contrary. .

Last, it is the only safe legal definition to go by. Otherwise, we end up making purely subjective, unscientific pronouncements about the beginning of life. It is certainly not scientific to say that only a woman can know. It is very bad public policy to leave the decision of life or death in the hands of one person, no matter if that person is the mother of the unborn child. So far we are talking only about unborn.  In the future, the discussion about when life begins may move into post birth territory.  

 We shall see how the murder case in Philadelphia plays out. Will the abortion doctor be acquitted, since there was no intention of letting the babies who survived his botched abortions live in the first place? [He was found guilty.]

What about Sen. Boxer's strange statements about when a baby is to receive full constitutional rights? Here is part of what she said.:

"In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/31/barbara-boxer-in-context.html

Both Sides Now

Joni Mitchell wrote this great song - Both Sides Now. Her interpretations are interesting, but kind of dark. Besides, her pitch center is sometimes a bit wobbly. Still, she is quite an amazing artist.  On YouTube you can find a number of her recordings.

I like Judy Collins' versions better. Her musicianship is superior and her voice more focused. Here is one she did with the Boston Pops in the late 70s.

Most women can relate well to this song's message. Sometimes things look one way to us, and then life teaches us to look at things another way.

When we are young, we tend to see only the beauty in things like clouds and relationships. After awhile, if we are not careful, we see only the dark side of life.

When we are young, we want to see life as always having a happy outcome, a happy fairytale ending. So we make choices about marriage, having children, and work thinking that only happy days are ahead. That is a good time of life, and there is nothing wrong with fairytales. Remember that in them there are also giants and witches and all kinds of evil things waiting to destroy the protagonists.

Of course, as we mature, we see that things do not always work out as we thought they would. We start to see the evil things that want to ruin our lives and the lives of those we love.

So, we are faced with new choices. Do we become angry and bitter, or even just melancholy with how things have turned out? Or do we look for something higher, something better, something yet to come that will wipe away all the tears of this life?

I guess all I have left to say on this for now is that those who believe in Jesus have a lot to look forward to. This life can offer only so much, and then it is gone. The Bible puts it this way.

James 4:14English Standard Version (ESV)

14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.

Yet for those who trust Christ, this is what we have to look forward to.

Revelation 21 English Standard Version (ESV)

The New Heaven and the New Earth

21 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 

2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 

4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Won't you trust Him? 

Lilith Redeemed - from April, 2011

Lilith Redeemed

The other day I wrote a bit about what I have been reading -  the book Lilith by George MacDonald.  Some say that this is his greatest work.  Most say, "Who in the world was George MacDonald?"   Well, he was a 19th century author who had a great impact on the life and writing of C.S. Lewis, and also J.R.R. Tolkien. As I said in the earlier post, he is considered by them and others to be the first to write in the fantasy genre, - at least in modern times.

Okay, so what is MacDonald trying to communicate to his readers in the bookLilith?

Well, I think that he is basically preaching the Gospel to us. He is using the story of Lilith's rebellion and eventual redemption as an example of how a soul is saved.  The original creation, degenerate because of sin,  is regenerated, and evil is undone.  Lilith, who was once enslaved by the shadows, is now overcome and set free by the light.

Pretty amazing, actually.  This Augustine quote is appropriate, I think.

"Thou hast prompted him, that he should delight to praise thee, for thou hast made us for thyself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee. "

- The Confessions of Saint Augustine, Book One, Chapter I


Below you will find what I think is a key quote from Lilith, p. 202.  We generatlly think of God changing a person, and He does, of course. However, isn't it more like God restores a person when they believe in Christ?  We become who we were meant to be all along.  We do the things that God prepared for us to do.
We do not need to fear putting our trust in Christ.  When we are found by Him, we  find our real selves, too.

Ephesians 2
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.


Lilith, p. 202
"Had he not made you," said Mara, gently and slowly, "you could not even hate him. But he did not make you such. You have made yourself what you are - Be of better cheer: he can remake you."

"I will not be remade!"

"He will not change you, he will only restore you to what you were."