Safer If They Called the AFA "Jihadis"

There's a rebuttal out there to the accusation of being paranoid, and that it is not paranoia if somebody's really out to get you.  Effective as a "Strike two!" call in a baseball game is the newest reveal that the US Army is naming the American Family Association a domestic hate group akin to the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church.  And to make sure Army personnel didn't misunderstand, the briefing at which this became an issue included a presentation slide putting Fred Phelps' photo (complete with him holding up a poster that says "No Special Law for F***") on a slide labeled American Family Association.  The rationale?  The AFA is strongly pro-traditional marriage and opposed to the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

Apparently, that position is all it takes to be labeled by the Army.

Ahem. When did the US Army get First Amendment rights?  I know for certain that individuals in the military have limited free speech rights on the condition of their service, so I would think that logically, our entire military has to curb its freedom to express an opinion that opposition to same-sex marriage is hate.  Speaking of free speech, it is an opinion that exceeds the purview of the military, because marriage is, as many conservative groups have argued, is just a social issue.  Hate is a social issue.  Violence and the threat to harm is not, and clearly the AFA is not an organization that engages or endorses any type of violence whatsoever.

This is a "Strike two!" occasion because, as Todd Starnes pointed out, this briefing by the Army is itself a dangerous hate move not unlike how the Family Research Council was also labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a potential target for a truly hateful fascist to attack, which then happened.  In fact, Army officers have come to see themselves as idealogues and the mechanism of the Army as a force for activism.

One officer said the two Christian ministries did not “share our Army Values.”
“When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values – don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem,” the officer wrote in an email to his subordinates.

The US Army has values?  And it is incumbent upon the American public to conform to those "Army Values?"  Call me hog-tied to the text (or paranoid!), but I'm certain that whatever Army Values exist are supposed to be reflective of the US Constitution which in no way acknowledges that one must campaign to "address concerns" of average American citizens that are "inconsistent with (so-called) Army Values."

So if the Army is going to fling open that door, then I'm not paranoid, and it's safe again to trod out Hitler references to things I find smack of fascism.  I ask that our government root out the Nazi dictator who compiled this briefing and jack him/her up for conspiracy to deprive the people of the AFA of their First Amendment rights and for putting them in potential physical harm.

Warning:  unlike baseball, there is no limit to the number of strikes anyone can make against Christian groups.

Ouroboros 5: "What if" = "What now?"

UPDATE 5/26/09: Life Training Institute's latest podcast deals with this very issue. Well worth the listen.

Orignially posted on 5/24/09:
From The Washington Times, the Hot Button article last week is about Sweden's public approval of gender abortion. In Sweden, women may legally use abortion as a method of sex selection. Yep--kill the unborn baby because the she is the wrong gender. Just to make things clear, Sweden has never had a law prohibiting abortion for sex selection. It's just now the issue has become public, and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has decided that it will not be made illegal.

According to the article, the difficulty started with a woman who aborted twice, because she wanted a boy but conceived girls instead, citing that she already had daughters. This is eerily similar to a reasoning exercised in India and China and current purveyors of biotechnology, that of "too many girls." Gendercide.

I'm skipping the whole discussion about Sweden's philosophical consistency to the pro-abortion stance. Sorry--too callous; too disturbing.

Instead, I want to know what so-called pro-choice people think about this. I want to know why abortion rights are more important than nondiscrimination based on race, faith or gender. I want to know why having the baby you want is more important than just having a baby. I want to know how dehumanizing the unborn doesn't undermine the basic humanity of the born. I want to know at what point pro-abortion feminists will realize that an unfettered right to abortion is a key to feminism's own implosion.

Feminism implodes when feminists approve of gendercide, because gendercide can only be used to hurt women. Historically and globally, females are the undervalued and easily discarded. Feminism argues for the intrinsic worth of women--it only makes sense if it means irrespective of age--and equality of the sexes. How unfortunate that gendercide undermines intrinsic worth and equality in the human community. Metaphysically, gender is a second-tier property, essential to the individual identity, but not foundational to being human. In other words, gender is an accidental property. What does it say about feminists if they choose to support such consumerized death based on the metaphysically nonessential? Oh yes, if you haven't realized it already, abortion is a retail consumer service.

Again and again, the pro-abortion rights movement and its defenses of abortion on-demand shows that the movement rests on nothing other than the exercise of power over the powerless; no other rationale supporting abortion is ever stated without it having been said about another group for the exact same purpose and reasoning. If gendercide is a future reality that we must endure, I hope abortion rights supporters who are women realize that they can never justifiably fight for equality in any arena (equal rights, equal moral standing, equal pay, etc.) outside of the womb if they are willing to deny equality to females who are in the womb.

Ouroboros, the art of self-destruction.

Toward More Justice at NAPAWF

Having an Asian heritage naturally makes me curious as to what Asian-focused organizations exist around the country. My latest internet surf has yielded my own discovery of the National Asian Pacific American Womens Forum (NAPAWF). On the surface, NAPAWF touts a decade of seeking justice for Asian women and girls around the world who have been abused. They promote awareness of human trafficking and sex slavery. They advocate legislation for improved access to adequate medical care for Asian women, especially those with difficulty understanding English.

All of this sounds terrific. However, all of this is not all there is. Alongside their efforts to help Asian women lies the open support and promotion of abortion, using a more commiserating term, "reproductive justice." As much as the other efforts receive attention, any casual look at their website shows that pro-abortion activism is a mainstay of this organization. For example, the last paragraph of their organizational statement says, "[NAPAWF] is where a longtime pro-choice activist finds young women ready to learn and keep the struggle for reproductive justice alive." Under the Programs & Projects tab, the very first item listed is their Reproductive Justice Program.

But I have found something very interesting about their causes that shows me a glimmer of hope in an otherwise tainted agenda. As much as it sounds like NAPAWF is a rank and file pro-abortion group (which it is on the surface), embedded in their literature and policy agendas is a value for human life that I believe NAPAWF might have simply overlooked in constructing their overall position on reproductive justice. Realizing this value and taking it to its logical end will truly give NAPAWF the solid ground on which to promote its causes.

First, the 2005 publication, RECLAIMING CHOICE, RECLAIMING THE MOVEMENT: Sexual and Reproductive Justice and Asian and Pacific American Women; A National Agenda for Action, states that "between 1994 and 2000, abortion rates fell in the United States for all groups except Asian and Pacific Islanders" (API) and suggests that (1) abortion rates remain higher because legal abortion in many of these women's country of origin (namely China and Korea) means greater acceptability for use of abortion as a method of birth control. Also, (2) lower use of prescription contraceptives than other ethnic groups contribute to increased pregnancy rates. The publication goes on to cite that 35% of pregnancies among API women end in abortion compared to 18% among White women, nearly double the rate.

Why cite such statistics? Why point out the disparity in abortion rates between Asian women compared to all women in the U.S? That Asian women are not having fewer abortions is an issue of concern within the publication. Intentional or not, this suggests something wrong with a steady abortion rate in API women against a falling trend among other ethnicities. In other words, just by calling attention to the disparity, NAPAWF is implying that API women should be seeking fewer abortions when everyone else is also seeking fewer abortions. That they continue indicates some cause for concern.*

Second, NAPAWF Organizing Director Yin Ling Leung points out a gravely critical issue in the abortion debate that I believe American pro-abortionists have intentionally suppressed--the glaring problem of abortion as a method of sex selection, particularly in Asia. In her article, "The Backwardness of Sex Selection Technologies," Leung reiterates the meagerly publicized fact that gender-based abortion/gender abortion is the reason for the disparate ratio of males to females in countries like India and China as ultrasound technology allows parents to know the gender of their fetus prior to birth. But while preference for the male gender is a defining feature of Asian culture, she believes we should not fool ourselves into thinking that the issue leaves us untouched here in America. Current biotechnologies have made much more than gender something to be considered on a consumer level. Leung writes,

"Commercialized sex selection poses several important risks for women and civil society. Gender is one of the most significant determinants of life experiences, and if we are willing to open the door to engineering this characteristic, where do we draw the line? Recently a research project documented that the vast majority of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are male, heterosexual, light-skinned and 6 feet tall. Will couples wanting to give their children an edge in life select for such traits? Today we select for gender. Tomorrow will we select for homosexuality, skin color, eye color, IQ, height and muscles?"

"Sex selection challenges feminist and social justice activists nationally and internationally in significant ways. Much of the women's reproductive rights movement is based on a pro-choice paradigm of a "woman's right to choice" and the right to privacy. We need to grapple with and draw some lines about what "choice" and "privacy" mean in the context of the new reproductive and genetic biotechnologies. Certainly it cannot mean the unfettered right to a market-based eugenic future. The political climate in the United States is ripe to debate the language of "choice" and consolidate a framework that takes on these ethical challenges." (I checked the NAPAWF site this morning and, apparently, this article has been removed. Their opposition to sex selection still exists on their Sex Selection Factsheet.)

Leung, I believe, hits the target dead on. Instead of criticizing merely the occurrences of sex selection via abortion, she expands her consideration to the entire paradigm of abortion, specifically to the definition of choice. In effect, she is asking "The choice to do what exactly?" acknowledging that not all abortion choices are valid. The issue is simple to understand: gender abortion is a form of eugenics.

Taken together, these statements from NAPAWF are implicit and unmistakable admissions that abortion is intrinsically bad for women, even if NAPAWF supporters do not realize it. I believe Asian women are in a uniquely advantageous position to criticize and challenge the practice of abortion on demand. Our reckoning of the continuing cultural tragedy of gender abortion and gender infanticide as the moral failings that they are should serve to challenge the world into reconsidering abortion as an approved legal practice for widespread use.

Of course, more than a spoonful of sugar will make this medicine go down. Abortion advocates in the U.S. have been especially silent on reproductive technologies that hail the creeping of eugenics back into American society. From their perspective, abortion advocates know that "unfettered" rights keep the moral considerations against abortion at bay. The moment the public has a chance to deliberate reasons for limiting abortion even in any small way is to open the floodgates of conscience over whether killing the unborn is even acceptable. In other words, pro-abortionists must tolerate or even support eugenics if they don't want to end up eroding their own pro-abortion position, because all defenses of human life begin with the idea that life has intrinsic value without discrimination against race, gender, or age (even gestational age). NAPAWF must somehow succeed in convincing the reluctant U.S. pro-abortion power base that female fetuses killed by 'gendercide' should receive protection, even though such arguments contradict the doctrine of privacy and choice of a woman to determine the manner and reasons by which her baby should die.

I think this would be an obviously futile effort. We simply have no good reasons to curb the practice of sex selection or to even prevent it from spreading through biotechnology unless we first argue that the intentional killing of any fetus is a violation of her intrinsic right to life and self-determination. This, of course, is not a pro-abortion position but a pro-life position.

I would hope that this ethical dilemma will cause the leaders of NAPAWF and other Asian-based womens organizations to carefully consider what the pro-abortion position has really done to women across the world. If we reflect on the outcome, women in countries where females are devalued suffer the most as abortion and eugenic technologies advance and people use them to actualize their preferences. Here, I believe the pro-abortion position MUST fall apart. If the right to abort rests on a right to choose, then a woman has the right to choose the gender of her baby and the right to abort when her her baby fails to meet her preferences. This is the logic that maintains the injustice of gendercide.

We can do better. NAPAWF can advocate true reproductive justice by recognizing that support of abortion is a capitulation that injustice still has power over us; leaders can end the cycle of death and injury that destroys millions of innocent Asian girls and women by refusing to allow it to destroy the next generation of women while they are yet in the womb. If one views this 'right to life' as an extension of what it already advocates (fighting human trafficking and sex slavery), the affirmation of life dovetails seamlessly into NAPAWF's raison d'etre. Only in this way do we act as a sisterhood of human flourishing that rises above and seeks a more triumphant way to serve and value the rights of our Asian sisters everywhere.

*A strong pro-abortion stance needs no such concern, however; if API women prefer abortion as a primary method of birth control, then why not congratulate them on utilizing and maintaining abortion services here in the U.S?

Complegalitarian Moves to WordPress

Goodbye, Blogger! The Complegalitarian blog has a new home at WordPress. If you're interested in jousting about gender roles in the Christian church, join me in a discussion over there. Now, behave! :-)

Three's Company? Palin, Mohler, and I

The following is a post I wrote for Complegalitarian. The issue surrounds the debate about how Sarah Palin should be viewed as a Christian woman in politics, running for the Vice Presidency of the United States. Although the debate over women in positions of authority is not new, the subject of Sarah Palin has catapulted the issue to the forefront of Christian circles. For Christians with a Complementarian point of view (that is, women have limited roles with respect to men) that also have a great interest in politics, this is the ultimate test of how their views apply. Some, like Al Mohler and David Kotter, both contributors to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, make way for Sarah Palin to lead in the highest executive position in the country. Others, like Doug Phillips of the Vision Forum, say that consistency is key, and no woman should ever occupy any civic position of authority.

As you can tell from the title of this post, I side with Mohler's approval of Gov. Palin. However, the reasons underlying my agreement differ quite a bit from the majority of Complementarians who have put their views in print, as CBMW has. This post, as well as the next one, expound on my particular views on the issue. As the following is in repsonse to comments made on the Palin-Mohler issue, please feel free to read Complegalitarian for the full context.

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

This is hardly a cheering endorsement from Mohler, though it certainly is an acknowledgement that not all wives and mothers are called to stay at home. It is, however, a clear admonition to not view her as a normal women. She is an exception, like Esther or Deborah, period. She is not so much an example to be followed as she is an exception to the general rule. (molly).
..
Mohler has a consistency problem with this one because Palin professes to be a Christian. Mohler/CBMW teach that Christian women have a 'role'and all that entails that we have discussed here ad nauseum. :o) However, they are also saying that we can separate the civil and spiritual realms for women in leadership. That does not seem to be a problem except that Palin is a Christian woman. Is anyone else not seeing this conumdrum for CBMW? How can they separate the civil and spiritual realm with a Christian woman? You can't. Christians don't have 'realms'. (lin)
...
It is clear that the non-egals want to have their cake and eat it too. (don)

Is CBMW being inconsistent, many ask?

I think it depends on the person speaking. Doug Phillips seems to believe he is more consistent than Al Mohler, but I don't think that matters in light of his views. When you believe that a woman is created for no other purpose than to be a babymama-housekeeper, you've effectively dropped out of reasonable conversation altogether.

Is complementarianism in trouble because of Sarah Palin?

That's funny, and the answer is no. Let me point out that Richard Land (complementarian) was one of the first people to propose naming Sarah Palin for McCain's VP early on in the campaign.

Do I have a problem with consistency as a complementarian?

Well, if I make the kind of errors I've read so far from both egals and patriocentrists, yes. But I haven't. In this previous post, I argued that it is perfectly consistent with my views on Complementarianism that a woman could be a leader in any civil realm she chooses.

To the issue raised that Christians (and certainly complementarians) don't have separate realms, vis a vis a Christian/spiritual realm to a secular realm (and the accusation that complementarians are trying to split life into these two realms): I would contend that this is an incorrect framing of the issue, which is then, incorrectly trying to expose inconsistency in complementarianism.

The idea, 'There is no separate spiritual realm and secular realm for the Christian,' is a theological proposition about how we should conduct ourselves with Christlike integrity wherever we are (not an existential proposition). Al Mohler is not making a contrary theological claim to that. Instead, he is making a simple modal distinction brought up by the case of Sarah Palin. In short, she can wear that hat (whether governor or VP or whatever). As to whether or not there exist separate realms, of course there are--we don't live under a theocracy afterall, and we don't demand that our government be ruled by the Church. This is an argument against a position like Doug Phillips'. That anyone can construe this to be a problem of complementarian proportions is ridiculous.

Is Gov. Palin the exception? Yes, in the sense that I think most women don't have the ability to do what she is doing, including myself. I can hardly find time to read a book much less occupy a public office. But also no, in the sense that she is an exeption because she is exceptional, not because she's bending some rule somewhere to get where she is (which is otherwise closed to women). There is no such rule that prohibits women from exercising public office. Any woman who has the skills to govern effectively and still regard her husband and family properly should be afforded the opportunity to exercise those skills, regardless of whether she is a Christian or not. (I would add, especially if she is a conservative Christian, but that is my bias that we don't need any more liberal pro-abortion politicians hostile to Christianity here in this country). Marilyn did make this point in the combox (much better than I, I think).

For those of you who are salivating at the idea that the issue of Sarah Palin proves that complementarianism as a system of thought is wrong need to aim your guns elsewhere, because you've really missed the point. Some hard complementarians/patriocentrists, like Doug Phillips, are certainly wrong in their views, but their problem isn't complementarianism. It's the refusal in their own hearts to see the full humanity of women.

Making Distinctions, Part 2

Between Submission and Submission

Or perhaps, Submission vs. Submission. Now that I've said that husbands can submit to their wives without biblical violations, I can't let that fly without making another important distinction, the distinction between the kind of submission a husband should have to his wife and vice versa. I tend to agree with David's thoughts in an earlier post that men and women are created differently and that those differences need to be respected (and I would also add NOT exploited) in how spouses submit to each other.

I've commented earlier that the question for Complementarians is not how much submitting should be excercised, but what kind. In his Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem makes the case that the role of a wife includes a unique kind of submission that wives should afford their husbands that isn't replicated in any other type of relationship. I see nothing wrong with that. After all, my husband only has one wife--me--and logically should receive a unique and designated kind of love and respect (and deference) from me that I don't show to anyone else.

Likewise, a husband should show his wife a unique kind of love and respect (and submission) toward his wife that isn't replicated in any other relationship either.

Is this submission "mutual?" Yes. Is it equivalent? Definitely not. But what is submission anyway? Even in defining submission within the marriage context, there are varying connotations. Complementarianism holds that men and women do not require and are not made to require the same kind of submission from each other, but do require the appropriate submission from each other. Even Egalitarians seem to use the word 'submit' a little differently when referring to whomever is doing the submitting. Again, the issue is about the nature of submitting, not how much or how often or to what degree one should submit to the other and if the other should reciprocate in equal quantities. I realize that this is a rather broad generality, and I think scripturally it is meant to be.

To throw a little more perspective onto things, imagine if wives always contested their husbands. Imagine if husbands continually ignored their wives. (Do we really need to imagine?) Now we can understand why Paul would spend time addressing the marriage relationship in scripture, for it appears that it was because wives were not submitting to their own husbands that Paul makes his declarations.

Perhaps this is where I should have started from the beginning. There is plenty of fear and suspicion to be had without a clear understanding of the motivations of the Apostle Paul whenever Christians talk about any kind of submission. We still have a long way to go to reach clarity, but I hope my making a distinction here contributes in some small way.

Making Distinctions, Part 1

This is a series that I am writing for the Complegalitarian blog. In an effort to spread controversy as far and wide as I can (which may not be very far, but here I go anyway), I am reproducing it here for my own blog.

Making Distinctions...

Between Patriarchy and Complementarianism
As I see it, ground level complementarianism simply states that there are divinely purposed roles for men and women to function in the family and in the church (yes, some roles not being swappable). Patriarchy can be seen as an extreme form of complementarianism, but I believe that its characteristics are less an extension of Complementarianism and more like Complementarianism's 'cult,' like the Jehovah's Witnesses are to Christianity(1). Therefore, I find much about patriarchy's views on complementarian principles objectionable.

1. Husband/father headship. Complementarianism simply gives the husband/father the role of representative leader that carries a unique accountability to God (Genesis 3). With that role logically comes a certain amount of authority. Complementarianism does not place the husband over the wife in terms of authority but logically maintains that deference be given to him because of his position. Is this a "priviledge?" If it is, it is a slight one and one not without narrow limits. This is not male hierarchy or male superiority any more than it is female inferiority.

Patriarchy seeks to centralize all authority to the head position and expands its reach into areas of life that minimizes the other figure in the marriage and home, namely the wife. Patriarchy views wives as means to the husbands' ends. From this point of view comes all the examples of husbands micromanaging (to put it nicely) their wives' lives for the purpose of making husbands' lives fulfilled and convenient. This is neither biblical nor justifiable. Scripture gives to the man a wife as a helper. Nowhere does the Lord God call her a maid, a butler, a servant, a tool, and certainly not a slave. As my pastor once preached as well, "Marriage is not to make you happy; it is to make you holy." Indeed, God commands the man to leave his home (meaning his familial identity) and cleave to his wife, yet patriarchy insists on the husband making the wife conform to his leanings and identity. One could more biblically state that the husband should be the one conforming more to his wife's identity instead.

What does the position of head contain? A man has the responsibility to make sure that what he and his family does is right in the sight of God, simply put. He is the one that has to answer for the collective state of his household; this doesn't mean that he speaks for his wife as an individual, but for both husband and wife as a unit.

2. One flesh unity in marriage. Complementarians and Egalitarians both agree that husband and wife should act together in building the character of their marriage and family. Patriarchy seeks to make this task univocal rather than in unity, and since authority is centralized in the husband, he then might find himself deciding things that he likely has little wisdom to give, like how many babies his wife should bear, what clothes his wife should wear, determining the occupations of his children beforehand, etc. The result is clearly not one flesh unity, but forced conformity (as discussed above).

3. Eve was created to be Adam's helper/helpmate. Complementarianism acknowledges that Eve wasn't just any female, but Adam's wife, pointing to a relationship between the two that existed the moment she began to exist. Outside of this relationship, who Adam and Eve were to each other would have been meaningless. Similarly, as Complementarians apply the Adam & Eve theme to the rest of humanity, it only makes sense in a marriage relationship that a woman is her man's helpmate. Therefore, there cannot be any patriarchal generalization that females in society are helpers to males in society. Thus, it is not wrong for women to hold positions of civic authority over men and similarly not wrong for women to have authority over men in the church provided that their authority does not violate a more foundational principle of 1 Tim. 2:12 (that women cannot have authority in church over their own husbands).

4. Wives are to submit to their husbands. That 'wives are to submit to their husbands' does not conversely mean that husbands are not to submit to their wives, yet this is precisely what patriarchy implicitly holds. (Oh, perhaps husbands may submit to their wives, but in patriarchal terms, such submitting must be done only if he wills or desires to submit. Pathetic.) A wife's submission is to God first and to her husband second and that submission to her husband is because of her submission to God. I am not now going to kill wifely submission with a thousand qualifications, so please don't misunderstand when I say that when a husband is sinful in his treatment and demands of his wife, her obligation not to sin is greater than her obligation to submit to her husband, so a wife should not feel compelled to obey the will of her husband in those times. Let me be redundant for clarity: a husband's sin need not be his wife's sin as well.

5. Should a husband submit to his wife? We've asked this question before on Complegalitarian without making this particular distinction, so allow me to make it here. Patriarchy says 'no.' Complementarians should correct the question to read "When should a husband submit to his wife?" As stated above, the mandate that wives are to submit to their husbands doesn't negate the fact that husbands need to listen and submit to their wives--when?--on the occasions that they should submit to their wives. This is what "mutual submission" means to me. It isn't 50/50, because 50/50 can be unjust by disregarding the nature of the subject.

First of all, these are not contrary statements. One may now try to accuse me of using an argument from silence, but I'll remind us that it is legitimate when we would expect circumstances to otherwise contradict the silence. In a couple of instances in scripture, we see married women acting without any explicit direction from their husbands in action very much in accordance to the providence of God.

Example 1 - In Genesis 2:1-4, Moses' mother orchestrates the saving of Moses' infant life by putting him into the basket in the river and then directing Miriam to watch over the baby.

Example 2 - To Moses again, his wife is the one that decides to circumsize their sons without his intitial knowledge.(Exod. 4:24-26) If patriarchy (the kind we're talking about) were the case, we would expect to see a reprimand of some kind of both women for making decisions that their husbands had to comply with--ahem--submitted to. But we don't. Instead, we see Yahweh's implicit approval of these women as having acted in accordance to His will when (especially in the latter case) the husband had not.

As a Complementarian, I see many problems with Patriarchy and agree with many of our Egalitarian commenters about them. However, I do object to the blurring of Complementarianism to share Patriarchy's views in the same way and in the same relationship.

(1) The most striking similarity about this comparison is the psychological irony that both Jehovah's Witnesses and Patriarchalists seem to play out, that all things so done by the ruling authority in the name of loving God and loving family actually end up robbing God and family of the love they truly ought to receive by substituting a false love of cultish control and demanding compliance in all things.

The View Heard 'Round the Blogosphere

DJ Chuang happened to post his thoughts on the same View controversy over the n-word as I. I appreciated the mutual interest on the topic and the different approach he took to seeing the video clip. Here is my comment to his post on Next Gener.Asian:

Hello DJ!

I just blogged about this same issue as well (read it at my blog). I guess it’s a good thing I wrote it without knowledge of your comments, because it seems we have something to talk about!

The majority race in this country is not the only one to be insensitive to other racial groups. As much as the black community is the victim of much racial insensitivity, blacks have also dished out their fair share of it as well, a lot of it falling on Asians. (Recall a riot in L.A. where Asian shopowners in particular were the victims of shooting, looting and vandalism).

Reading my post, you might get a sense that I am one of those fellow Asians that doesn’t acknowledge the cultural differences that come with being in a racial minority in America. I think those differences are impossible to ignore, so rest assured that at the very least I don’t ignore it.

However, there quickly comes a point where talking about things like this out loud becomes little more than complaining and beating up on an entire class of fellow humans (a.k.a. those of “white priviledge”), most of which have been whipped by political correctness not to have a true dialogue about race at all but parrot PC language all day long. There also comes a point where I surmise some might resist making progress for fear of losing their power once forgiveness becomes incumbent upon them.

The church is in the perfect spot to exemplify healing to the world. It is a testimony that–I agree with you–we are failing to accomplish. Theologically speaking, all races in question belong to the majority in mankind: Gentile. I believe that as Christians, this is where we need to begin. The Gospel of Jesus Christ has come to even us, as the Judaizers with Peter realized.

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came down on them, just as on us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if God gave them the same gift that He also gave to us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, how could I possibly hinder God?” When they heard this they became silent. Then they glorified God, saying, “So God has granted repentance resulting in life to even the Gentiles!” (Acts 11:16-18, emphasis mine)

As a Christian, capitulating to the world’s fragmentation and double standards has never sat well with me. We can do better, much much better.

What's love got to do with it?

A friend of mine spent five years with a woman who married him only for US citizenship. I know a number of couples whose marriages were arranged, including my own in-laws. I know that hundreds of marriages each year take place between two people who don't even know each other in mail-order bride setups. In none of these situations where a marriage license must be obtained does a judge or a court clerk ever ask how each party feels toward the other. Why not? Because, it is not up to civil authorities to determine if there is an emotional basis for marriage. In other words, as far as the government is concerned, what's love got to do with it?

Apparently, it's the only thing that matters if you're gay and want to marry your partner in California. The CA Supreme Court put same-sex marriage on the fast track to statewide implementation this week by overturning a ban on such marriages. Chief Justice Ron George explained the majority opinion by saying, "our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person..." yada yada (emphasis mine). Oh, so now the state is supposed to have an interest in how loving two people are toward each other as the basis for marriage?

Anyone should see how poor Justice George's rationale is. First, the law has never cared about the emotional state of people getting married, because second, it can't. The law has no ability to grant a position of marriage based on emotional relationship, because "loving" is not a quantitative characteristic. All the law can establish with any certainty is species, gender, and age, all of which must be legal in order for a valid marriage. Last, the length of the committment to marriage is of no consequence (and just as unquantifiable), as divorce is as common as tatoos in Seattle. So Justice George's appeal to gay couples having the capacity for "long-term committed relationship[s]" makes about as much sense as...as...well, it doesn't make any sense.

Now I'd like to march right into the courthouse where I got my marriage license and demand to know why my feelings about my fiancee were never confirmed for the state. That's the government--failing the people once again.

Making Feminists Cringe. Oh Well. -3-

Men, Men, Men, Men, Part 3

I (that's me)

take the bull (that's you)

by the horns (leaving that up to your imagination).

This might be my last installment of rant-on-men, but I won't promise. I specifically want a word out on marrieds.

I found the following essay by Judy (Syfers) Brady (pictured above), referenced on Mary Anne Joy's feminist blog. Though the essay was written over 30 years ago, much of it is still relevant to the lives of typical American wives.

I belong to that classification of people known as wives. I am A Wife. And, not altogether incidentally, I am a mother. Not too long ago a male friend of mine appeared on the scene fresh from a recent divorce. He had one child, who is, of course, with his ex-wife. He is looking for another wife. As I thought about him while I was ironing one evening, it suddenly occurred to me that I, too, would like to have a wife. Why do I want a wife? I would like to go back to school so that I can become economically independent, support myself, and, if need be, support those dependent upon me. I want a wife who will work and send me to school.

And while I am going to school, I want a wife to take care of my children. I want a wife to keep track of the children's doctor and dentist appointments. And to keep track of mine, too. I want a wife to make sure my children eatproperly and are kept clean. I want a wife who will wash the children's clothes and keep them mended. I want a wife who is a good nurturant attendant to my children, who arranges for their schooling, makes sure that they have an adequate social life with their peers, takes them to the park, the zoo, etc. I want a wife who takes care of the children when they are sick, a wife who arranges to be around when the children need special care, because, of course, I cannot miss classes at school. My wife must arrange to lose time at work and not lose the job. It may mean a small cut in my wife's income from time to time, but I guess I can tolerate that. Needless to say, my wife will arrange and pay for the care of the children while my wife is working.

I want a wife who will take care of my physical needs. I want a wife who will keep my house clean. A wife who will pick up after my children, a wife who will pick up after me. I want a wife who will keep my clothes clean, ironed, mended, replaced when need be, and who will see to it that my personal things are kept in their proper place so that I can find what I need the minute I need it. I want a wife who cooks the meals, a wife who is a good cook. I want a wife who will plan the menus, do the necessary grocery shopping, prepare the meals, serve them pleasantly, and then do the cleaning up while I do my studying. I want a wife who will care for me when I am sick and sympathize with my pain and loss of time from school.

I want a wife to go along when our family takes a vacation so that someone can continue to care for me and my children when I need a rest and change of scene. I want a wife who will not bother me with rambling complaints about a wife's duties. But I want a wife who will listen to me when I feel the need to explain a rather difficult point I have come across in my course studies. And I want a wife who will type my papers for me when I have written them.

I want a wife who will take care of the details of my social life. When my wife and I are invited out by my friends, I want a wife who will take care of the baby-sitting arrangements. When I meet people at school that I like and want to entertain, I want a wife who will have the house clean, will prepare a special meal, serve it to me and my friends, and not interrupt when I talk about things that interest me and my friends. I want a wife who will have arranged that the children are fed and ready for bed before my guests arrive so that the children do not bother us. I want a wife who takes care of the needs of my guests so that they feel comfortable, who makes sure that they have an ashtray, that they are passed the hors d'oeuvres, that they are offered a second helping of the food, that their wine glasses are replenished when necessary, that their coffee is served to them as they like it.

And I want a wife who knows that sometimes I need a night out by myself.

I want a wife who is sensitive to my sexual needs, a wife who makes love passionately and eagerly when I feel like it, a wife who makes sure that I am satisfied. And, of course, I want a wife who will not demand sexual attention when I am not in the mood for it. I want a wife who assumes the complete responsibility for birth control, because I do not want more children. I want a wife who will remain sexually faithful to me so that I do not have to clutter up my intellectual life with jealousies. And I want a wife who understands that my sexual needs may entail more than strict adherence to monogamy. I must, after all, be able to relate to people as fully as possible.

If, by chance, I find another person more suitable as a wife than the wife I already have, I want the liberty to replace my present wife with another one. Naturally, I will expect a fresh, new life; my wife will take the children and be solely responsible for them so that I am left free. When I am through with school and have a job, I want my wife to quit working and remain at home so that my wife can more fully and completely take care of a wife's duties.

My God, who wouldn't want a wife?

Poignant. I'm having trouble following that up with anything equally as poignant. In this, I don't blame feminists for feeling the way they do. I'm strongly inclined to feel the same way. I believe things would change, however, if husbands would stop being the jerks feminists think is an endemic disease of the y chromosome.

Husbands have no problem focusing on their selfs. I hope I've made it evident that husbands should think more of their wives' selfs a little more often (if not first, if not sacrificially for those of you calling yourselves Christians).

Making Feminists Cringe. Oh Well. -2-

Men, Men, Men, Men, Part 2

"WITHOUT HARDEES, MEN WOULD STARVE"

Remember this tagline? Er, for those of you who live in Hardees states, otherwise they might be known as Carl Jr.'s. The TV commercial featuring this tagline shows a man in a grocery store staring up a wall of bread, paralyzed by the choices and unable to pick a loaf to avoid starvation. Thank goodness for Hardees, the commercial flaunts. Although amusing, this commercial betrays something about men that we find typical in American life, that men are often inept to care for themselves or anyone else in a basic area such as food, unless food is prepackaged and ready to eat and served to one's face. Women fear that children, left to the care of men, will eat nothing but fries, chips, and ice cream forever. We also fear for our men's own health. Although this might seem an exaggeration, experienced wives like myself know that this is indeed a reality. The wiser among us will also know that this state of being has serious repercussions for society.

So now I continue my previous discussion on feminism, beginning with the things men need to face. Wanted or not, here are my suggestions for men:

1. Get yourself under control before anything else. If you have unhealthy, immoral obsessions and habits that you are making excuses for, no woman in her right mind would want to put up with you; you will always end up ruining any relationship as long as you're out of control. This also goes for men who want to remain single. If you are a Christian, you can't expect to be an effective in church or in life if your sin is producing a double life for you.

2. Get some ed. Formally or informally, men should know about life, the home, women, and kids.
Life - many men only do two things: work and recreate; seek to do more than gaming, sports, hobbies or work (for some men, their work is hobby). Pay attention to your views of life and faith--are you even conscious of them? Socrates said "The unexamined life is not worth living." How much of your own life do you examine? More importantly, what are the ramifications of your own thoughts and actions, for your future, for others?

The home - Find out how to live like a family man, even if you're single (most men have their own families, right?). Many men will keep their sports equipment or cars lovin' fresh to the neglect of everything else. Pick up some life skills: learn how a mortgage works, keep a bathroom clean, pick up a couple plumbing know-hows. Can you cook anything, or do you only reheat?

Women - Learn how to treat the opposite sex properly. Ask a woman to help you--she'll probably tell you more than you wanted to know! Hang around mature married couples and find out what husbands have learned about how to relate to their wives. For men who want to be married one day, you need this.

Kids - It's not enough to know how to make 'em. Men suffer a huge social disconnect when they don't know how to relate to children, and it's usually the kids to do the suffering for it. The number of kids who do not have the benefit of a good father figure has been high for decades and is still rising. Even if you don't have kids of your own, learn how to be a father figure to someone who needs one.

3. Find a dad. If your own dad isn't a good choice for whatever reason, then find a dad--a mentor. Most guys need the voice of wisdom, yet actively seek to avoid it, choosing the comfort of ignorance . More importantly, most guys need male accountability. Yo mama simply won't do.

4. Be honest with yourself and with others. Most people in general think of themselves more highly than they deserve. Women know that most men parade themselves about with exaggerated opinions of their own abilities as well as display false humility to maintain their flimsy but idolized egos. We can see through that. We really can.

5. Be a leader. I don't mean running for prez. I mean seek responsibility instead of avoiding it altogether. A leader considers how his actions will affect himself and others later on and takes steps to steer away from foolish decisions. If men took more of a stand for longer-range thinking and stood by wiser actions, they might well pull a whole community to live wiser as well, and some people might even have respect for them. How about that?

6. Find a vision for yourself. Where do you see yourself, and what are you doing in five years? In 10? More importantly, what will your attitudes and understanding of yourself be then? I have male friends who have no vision. They are in their 30's and still live with their parents playing video games like perpetual teenagers. Such men are squandering away their youth on trivial pursuits, simply getting older and never having accomplished anything respectable.

In other words, grow up. A couple of years ago, I heard that sociologists are lamenting the ever lengthening period of adolescence in young men, lasting into the mid twenties (and perhaps beyond). If you are at least 20 years old, our communities and families need men, not boys.

5 Lies the Church Tells Women

Thanks to Sarah Flashing who has linked up the following on her blog . I thought it was well-worth reading. It is an article written by Sue Bohlin titled 5 Lies the Church Tells Women.

In a nutshell, here they are:

Lie #1: God Created Women as Inferior Beings, Destined to Serve Their Husbands.
Lie #2: A Man Needs to "Cover" a Woman in Her Ministry Activities.

Lie #3: Women Can't be Fulfilled or Spiritually Effective Without a Husband or Children.

Lie #4: Women Should Never Work Outside the Home.

Lie #5: Women Must Obediently Submit to Their Husbands in All Situations.

I find the last one the most problematic for a couple of reasons.

First, the wording that women must obediently submit is curious. The word "obediently" is either reduntant or meant to change the word "submission" to mean something that it does not. Bohlin doesn't adress this, but the phraseology of this sentence, if accurate, belies a misunderstanding of submission in our churches on the whole. In scripture, submission is a call to respectful and humble unity, before other connotations. In light of Paul's directive in 1 Peter 5:5 (Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility.--NKJV), 'to submit' does not mean 'to do whatever your husband says,' which is basically what Lie #5 advocates.

The second point springboards from the first. Lie #5 adds "in all situations" pointing to when wives should do what their husbands say, which, in this case, is all the time. Clearly, this is unscriptural. The Bible commands women to sumbit to their husbands, as to the Lord (Eph. 5:22). One can interpret this verse in different ways, though I would clarify wifely submission to apply as long as her husband is behaving as the Lord. No woman should accept demands from her husband that lead to sin, which include demands that serve no leadership or edifying purpose in the kingdom of God (other than to indulge the husband in some sinful stroke of the ego or something related). To submit in this way would clearly violate a woman's first submission to God, and the woman is not obliged to accept his demands.

Having said all that, I would follow it with the caution that if a husband is acting in accordance with the scriptures and asks his wife to submit in some necessary action either in will or deed (or both), God has not given her the option to refuse.

Of course, I am completely aware that Lie #5 may be phrased in exaggeration, in which case I'd like to add "Whether Waking or Sleeping" to the end. Exactly to how many churches or individuals does this really apply, I wonder?

Walking the narrow path is hard, and this issue is about as narrow and hard as it gets.

Making Feminists Cringe. Oh Well. -1-

Men, Men, Men, Men, Part 1

I'll start off by stating that I'm not a feminist. But, I don't wear a *bonnet either, and I don't believe that the only stick a woman should drive is a broom or a butter churn.

With that out of the way, I'd like to thank Mark Driscoll for his stance on what men should be and how they should behave, especially when it concerns the Church, marriage, and family. In what some feminists see as an affront, I react with "Dang! That's good stuff!" See what I mean:
(it's a long clip, but well worth it to get the context)



As far as character goes, I agree with Driscoll--men have become wimps in society. I'm not talking about the macho ego that many men throw around as a substitute for real manliness; I'm talking about the selfish withdrawal from upholding order and morality in civilization that has occurred over the past couple of generations. Men have, on the whole, become qualitatively (and physically in many cases) weak, flabby, self-focused amoebas who want to retain arrogance and the right to feel sexually fulfilled. Yeah, jerks.

K-Fed, anyone?

What about the other side? Many men complain that women berate them incessantly about their shortcomings and simply want them to step off. It's true--women do that. But for women to step off, men must first step up.

*disclaimer: this statement is not meant to offend or malign anyone who wears a bonnet.

Making Feminists Cringe. Oh Well. (Intro)

I just love the idea of making this category a running series. I find feminism an intriguing topic, badly in need of critique and pushback as much as understanding.

This series is aimed at recovering womanhood, specifically Biblical Womanhood, first in the mind and will, and then into practice. I join the many voices out in the blogosphere already discussing this topic, I know. And the term "Biblical Womanhood" almost seems cliche. I am convinced, though, that unless we increase the volume of discussion everywhere, the stream of access, and thus, importance of Biblical Womanhood will remain narrow and confined, leaving it an issue visited only by those who are really looking for thoughtfulness on this subject and not by the Christian populace at large.

In these three-plus decades since women's lib, feminism has taken the modern and postmodern American society by storm (in waves, as it is officially called). Extreme feminism characterizes a big chunk of feminism in general (the man-hating, pro-abortion, double standard, raunchy, lesbianism promoting feminism). It's fair to say that conservative women like myself pass on donning the cloak of feminism due to the prominent extremism.

There is a woman in nearly every household (many more than men). Of those, every Christian woman desires how to live and love according to God's will, whether she is a feminist or not.

I'd like to do several things with this series. Oddly enough, it doesn't start with women. I'd like to discuss men's roles in our culture, church, and family; I'd like to discuss women in dating and marriage relationships; I'd like to tread on the ground of being, so to speak, where women find the wholeness that seems to elude us; I'd like to challenge feminist ideals (good and bad) and bring their ramifications to light. It'll be fun.

I want people to realize that this topic doesn't concern only women. Much to feminists' chagrin, women need the involvement of men to achieve biblical womanhood. Likewise, men need women to achieve biblical manhood as well (more about that later!). So, I need thoughtful men to share their comments and personal struggles with this issue, in keeping with good netiquette, and no trolling. Welcome to another thing!