Hindsight in 2020, but What Now?

Jesse​ had to talk me down last night from a full panic about the presidential race. My disturbed-horror-face wrinkles are becoming as entrenched as the polemic views in the two-party system...HIYO!

I had up until now convinced myself that, yes, we Americans are reality TV-loving dumb-dings on a superficial level (I'm looking at you, me), but that deep down and collectively we have sense and virtue too. 

I am now beginning to doubt this. 

The best Jesse could do for me was to say that he thinks we'll have to just grin and bear it for the next four years and hope it's a wake-up call. (The upside: seeing which candidate will be the first to use the "Hindsight in 2020" campaign slogan. It's so good, right? I thought of this on my own, but someone else already made a bumper sticker for it too!).

source

But as a passionate reader and admirer of American history (I cry like a big dumb nerd every time one of my Presidential biographies ends with the guy dying...spoiler alert: most do), it's not that easy to just write off this lunacy and resign myself to 4 embarrassing (if not dangerous) years. I am literally brought to bitter tantrum tears when I think about some of today's candidates possibly holding the same office as Washington/Adams/Lincoln/Roosevelt. I am ashamed when I read what the founders entrusted to us and how disappointed they would be about what we've done with it.

Many countries attempted to carve out republics before the U.S. did. There are lots of theories as to why our Great Experiment has worked for so long while others didn't. But one thing that the men who gave their lives to seeing that it would succeed seem to return to is the idea of liberty thriving as a result of a nation that esteems virtue above all, and not the idea that liberty itself could create or even was necessarily a virtue in itself. 

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net."-John Adams

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."
-James Madison

"It is in the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. . .  degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats into the heart of its laws and constitution."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."-Benjamin Franklin

"Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue?"
-George Washington

"Whenever we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary."
-Thomas Paine

They aren't saying, "you need to pick one perfectly virtuous person, and as long as you do that, you'll be okay." Obviously that person doesn't exist. Every president we've had, from the most epic (Washington truly was a mythic leader, but still a slaveowner) to the most jerk/idiot/criminal/nympho (Nixon did good things in China between crimes and Clinton did lots for worldwide peace, the economy and promoted women's rights, between doing other things with lots of women), has had glaring gaps in their own character and would probably admit it. This was never supposed to be a top-down system where we emulate government. The leaders and laws are a product of us, not the other way around.

And it makes sense. We have an entrenched bureaucracy. I have always laughed it off when people say "this is how Hitler got his start" about an American politician because by design, it's very hard for one person to make rapid, sweeping changes in American government. Sure, the gridlock is infuriating a lot of the time, but it's there as a check against the kind of despotism and ass-hattery that would ignore the voice of the majority and lead us quickly into trouble.  

No, these guys who literally wrote the book on what America should/could/would be seem to be saying that we the--"We The People"-- are the engine and we make our own destiny, and that it's on us to make sure it all works by prioritizing the right things. 

This idea had been bastardized by many talking heads and stump speeches and sermons, and it's NOT what these giants of history (nor Jesus) are referring to when they talk about virtue. The idea of America "turning back to the Lord!" to be "great again" is cheap and easy and it's bad politics and theology in my opinion (aka Jesus Lite). Because neither is ever that formulaic.  Neither the constitution nor the bible says, "if you stop doing X, everything will mostly go well for you." And also America simply isn't a Christian nation, by definition nor by practice or composition.

As easy as it is right now to point at a few (or more likely one particularly glaring, orange) examples of leaders without virtue, the true blame...or at least explanation, lies with us. The political party leaders and strategists aren't morons, and they aren't backroom conspirators trying to saddle us with a candidate that more than 50% of us would never, ever vote for. If politicians are the product, we are the market, and the political parties are there to supply that which we demand.

These are our monsters.

So what does a nation that values virtue look like and why do we seem to have strayed from this? 

I don't know. Crap, that was anti-climactic.

I don't even have a well thought out idea. My best theory is kind of morbid and it's that we haven't had a major, nation-consuming war in too long. The people of the Revolutionary, Civil and World wars weren't inherently better than us, yet they are pretty universally revered, admired and called "the greatest generation." What they did all do though is rise to the occasion of drastic circumstances. Human nature is crazy resilient and adaptive, and immense hardship can bring out incredible character (that's historical AND biblical). 

These major wars were big enough to require the efforts and courage and sacrifice of the entire nation to survive, and I think that as a result they were transformative to our large-scale national character and values. So a country that has been sitting on peace (on a macro level, I know many heroic men and women have died in service to our country in wars and conflicts that may be regional or less than nation-consuming), and prosperity for 70 years could very understandably have taken on the character of a spoiled and pampered child. 

I really hope I am wrong. But I get nervous because it feels like we may be close to electing someone as the face and voice of our nation who is extremely contentious, bombastic, arrogant, and conflict-happy. My nightmare is that well-armed, reactionary, antagonistic countries who may be looking for a reason to cripple us would see Presidential vitriol and political/diplomatic incorrectness as reason enough to begin or draw us into a conflict that would cost blood on a large scale.

But again, that is all so very macro: "Our nation needs to esteem virtue more." Ummmmm, okay, George Washington/Keight Dukes...what do you want me to do about it? Yeah for real.  What do I--one chick with one vote in a hidebound conservative state that will undoubtedly vote Republican no matter what--do to count it as "doing my part." Even aside from voting or campaigning or this one election, how do I change anything about our nation's virtue? How do we? Because I really don't want the answer to ever be that I have to send my son to war, ration butter and go to work in a tank factory.

This is really, really hard stuff. It's reductive to just blame Donald or Hillary or Obama or W. and complain, so what else can we do? It's infuriating because it feels like at the highest level things are spiraling and changing rapidly, but at my level, I'm just a flea trying to reroute the Titanic. Everything feels upside down. The few should feel as constrained in their power as the many feel in our freedom. Problems happen when it gets flip-flopped and change can only happen in a few hands, but the masses can't seem to do anything--and it feels like that's where we are.

I am kind of just ready to see this period of America as history, but I don't want to be one who commits evil or let's it happen because I did nothing.

P.S. Full disclosure, if I had my way from here I think I'd like to see Rubio vs. Sanders, and I am not sure who I would then vote for.

Opening the Floodgates, But Maybe Not the Border

My husband is known by his friends (AND ENEMIES--looking at you, Skeletor!) for willingly and ably wading into hot-button, murky topics that are politically polarizing, and having focused, rational dialogue about them. ON SOCIAL MEDIA. 

174 comments. On ESTATE TAX REFORM. I just died of both boredom and rage all at once.

But God bless that Jesse Dukes, he hangs in there. He respectfully replies to all comments--notably even the butt-ass-crazy ones--with reason and an openness to legitimately have his own position changed.

This bizarre behavior is basically the digital equivalent of someone setting up High Tea on the beach of Normandy during the D-Day invasion, and then calmly inviting the combatants to sit and discuss their quarrels over cucumber sammies (no crust). "Bullets? Oh, are there bullets? Now, what were you saying about women should be required to burn their yoga pants on the altar?" He asks, while wiping a crumb from his mouth with an embroidered napkin.

I am guilty of being one of the soldiers who just wants to lob a logic grenade and then crawl to safety. I usually can hang for one or two replies, and then I lose my mind and just troll the comments with  my awkward.

 You know how I be.

HOWEVER. Today I really do want to hear from "the other side." Or at least the slice of them who follow Jesus (strangely it seems that the "most christian" people are the ones the most vocally against this). Because I can't get my brain there by myself:

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

If you are a Jesus follower AND you are against the U.S. offering refuge here to Middle Eastern citizens displaced by war, can you please help me through how you reconcile those?

I am uncertain how a candidate or citizen can hold Bible verses that don't seem to allow alternate interpretation in their heads and hearts while seeming to do and call for the opposite: 

Matthew 25:41-43: I was homeless and you gave me no bed.

Leviticus 19:34. Love him [a foreigner] like one of your own. Remember that you were once foreigners

My thinking is really simple, and I am not sure I will be budging from these premises, at least: 

1. Jesus is for the refugee. Jesus is for His own enemies.  Literally.

Um. I feel like I dont even need to add backup explanations here. If we aren't capice about this, then we are talking about two different guys and can't go much further.

2. If you claim Christ's grace, you yourself are a refugee who has been welcomed.

Every person who has accepted the Grace of Christ has been adopted as a child of God Himself, and  has eternal citizenship in heaven. And by definition that means each of us WAS ONCE A REFUGEE. Was ripped out of a perfect home as a consequence of the war between satan and God, and given our deserved fate of pain, suffering, hunger, disease as a result of our status as refugees untethered to our God and home. 

3. I didn't have to pass a test to be welcomed: He died to have me even while I spit in His face.

Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.  But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Eph 2:12 // Rom 5:8)

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

Okay so there is my stance. BUT I know that it isn't just that simple, especially when national policy is involved.

Is it simply a matter of compartmentalizing your faith as separate from your politics? Saying, "I will obey those commands personally, but it might not be best for America to make policy in accordance with them." 

Because I can get there mentally, even if I disagree on this.

I think it would be a disaster to try to legislate 100% by Christian principles. That would be A: against the constitution (the only document America bound itself to by definition), and B: making a Sharia Nation--just of a different religion. This idea will never ever work until Jesus comes back (And the gov-ern-ment shall be upon his sho-o-o-o-ulders!).

But if that's the basis for how we vote and legislate, then why would we try to stand in the way of gay marriage or abortion rights on the basis of biblical principles? Isn't that just cherry picking? Claiming "God's Way for America!" when lines up with what we want, but proclaiming "Separation of Church and State," when it doesn't?" (And I think I may be guilty of this too!)

I guess this one seems more cut-and-dry: Jesus is saying "DO THIS," and yet some people want to make a law that would prevent--as a country--obedience to this even as individuals (because we can't give them a bed in my house if they aren't allowed in America. Because, ya know, my house and beds? They're in America).

I seriously want to know and am not looking to whammy anyone or debate back. I want to learn (because I am really good at black and white thinking) more of the perspectives on this. I know many ultra-kind political conservatives who have the most giving, loving, non-judgmental hearts, and I want to hear how that works out in their lives.

So here we go. 

To Christians against welcoming Arab Refugees to America:

1. How do you reconcile the closing of our border to these people with your faith and status as a citizen of heaven?

2. How do you think we could/should obey Jesus' commands individually while not legislating any kind of refugee acceptance?

For Everyone:

3. Where/how do you draw a line between your politics and your faith?  

Safe Sects: Love the EVERYONE

*I shared this on Facebook originally but wanted to put it here where it won't get lost or buried. And I added a bit to it.*

I haven't said anything about some of the hot-button issues lately (Caitlyn, McKinney). I have been watching and reading and pulling my hair out--cringing, and feeling sick at *some* of the things that people who look like me and label themselves like I do (white, heterosexual married, christ-follower) have been saying about and to their fellow human beings.

I have been wondering if/how to even inject my voice into this maelstrom OF SHOUTING and "them versus us." But it's not really my jam to outsmart or argue (I lack the intelligence and the patience of Jesse) or to even be "on a side."

So here's the best I can come up with:

I feel like my job, my calling, and my heart as a Jesus-follower is to be a safe person for YOU. If you're a transgender decathlete, a white cop, a black teenager, a right-wing conservative, a Buddhist, a nerd, Sammy Sosa, a vegan, my BFF, or WHATEVER. Please hear:

I want everyone who crosses my path to always feel safe with me. Your story, your pain, your "stuff," who you are---> I'm not interested in changing, minimizing, calling out or arguing against any of it. 

My #1 only "strategy" for how I--a clueless dummy--can best show you my Jesus, is for you to feel safe and heard--never rejected or judged. I'm probably going to mess it up, but I aspire to be that first and foremost. I think that being a safe haven for my neighbors speaks so much louder and is much more effective than trying to convince them of my ways or their shortcomings ever could be.

I have been zapped, whammied, blasted, and stomped by people wielding Jesus as a shame weapon and it SUCKS. If that has been your experience, I want to apologize and tell you that I don't think that is an accurate picture of Him in the slightest. 

I wasn't able to put any kind of articulate, biblical and personal thoughts together about these things in the past few weeks (mostly I was just all "OHHHH THE ANGST OF MEEEEE") until my friend shared a blog post originally written in 2013. It helped put words to my response to the hoopla and the hate. It was my, "YES! THIS IS IT!" moment.

The writer, Beth Woolsey, speaks my heart and my Jesus-reasoning on this topic better than anything I have read so far and it's a message I hope comes across from me PLEASE read it if you A: like to point out sin in others (me!) or B: have ever had your stuff called out by a Christian whose advice you weren't asking for (me too!) or C: are human (also me): 3 Reasons I Quit Loving the Sinner and Hating the Sin.  

When it's no longer my agenda to identify your sins (and put them in your "THINGS I MUST HATE ABOUT YOU" file), I have a lot more time and energy to spend actually hearing and understanding you. I have heard so many Christians say, "I was so sure that X group of people were wrong/awful, until I found out my son/brother/friend was one." The relationship can often be more powerful than issue--but only if I don't use the issue as relational TNT to obliterate any chance of a relationship and Christlike love ever developing. 

Safety first. 

Safety Officer.

Why This Pastor's Wife Recommends Reading "50 Shades of Grey" Excerpts to Your Partner on Valentine's Day

Welcome to the first installment of "Keight Reviews of Books She Will Never Read, and then Immediately Stops Talking in the Third Person."

You may have gleaned from the title that I'm a Christian woman married to a professional minister, and, yes, that's right!--I think you and your partner absolutely should read passages* from 50 Shades of Grey aloud to each other this Valentine's Day. But not for the sexy....for the hilarity. Because if you tell me this book isn't a comedy I will tell you your pants are on fire.

Feminism/porn elements aside--for a brief moment only, because they should be/have been considered by people smarter than me--let's talk about the abuse of the English language that is running as rampant in this book as an outbreak of the STDs that it has surely contributed to.

Here are some selected favorites from the book itself:
 source. I added my own commentary because it's just too easy and fun, but theirs is definitely worth reading too.

"I feel the color in my cheeks rising again. I must be the color of The Communist Manifesto."  WHAT?!? NO. BAD. Why drag Karl Marx into this?

"And from a very tiny, underused part of my brain - probably located at the base of my medulla oblongata near where my subconscious dwells - comes the thought: He's here to see you."  I think there may be very large parts of your brain that are underused, sweetie. And from a part of my stomach where all my bile dwells comes a sensation: gag.

"My very small inner goddess sways in a gentle victorious samba."  My very small intestine is swaying gently at the sight of all this crap in need of passing.

"I can almost hear his sphinx-like smile through the phone." This guy sure sounds like a raging sphinxter to me!

"His voice is warm and husky like dark melted chocolate fudge caramel... or something." FUN!: a choose-your-own-adventure simile for your readers to DIY. That's like as fun as like...something. Somebody, quick, get me a PULITZER!

"I flush at the waywardness of my subconscious - she's doing her happy dance in a bright red hula skirt at the thought of being his."  Does Sherwin Williams carry Communist Manifesto Hula Skirt Red? Because it sounds like it would look real primo in my scrapbooking studio.

source

I mean is this butchery of the English language supposed to be part of the naughty, naughty bad girl pain? Because it hurts worse than if someone locked my brain in fuzzy handcuffs and whipped it with just horrible, horrible metaphors (as turns out my brain is old fashioned and just isn't into that).

If the writing sounds like Twilight fan fiction, that's because it is. Seriously. How on earth that fact alone didn't stop this book's publication in its tracks is beyond me. And, yes, I purchased and read all volumes of the Twilight saga in about a week. They were no Ulysses, yet they were still harmlessly, addictively enjoyable. Like delicate cardamom-dusted plantain chips...OR SOMETHING. But as Sir Salman Rushdie said, "Fifty Shades of Grey makes Twilight look like War and Peace," so I cannot be faulted for indulging in those, right?  (to be fair: I read War and Peace last year--just to have actually done it--and I hated it, so what do I know about anything?).

Even if this was somehow a book on biblical marriage (and, spoiler alert, I'm like 60% sure it's not)--written in this "style" of prose, I would still find it offensive just for its terribleness-of-words (with phrasal gems like that, clearly I should be writing all the books). 

I was reading some lists of the top awful/ridiculous quotes from this series, and something kept tickling (in a G-rated way, I assure you) my memory. And then I found the perfect article, and it hit me (figuratively/platonically) why the syntax seems so familiar. OH! Because it's exactly the method of essay-writing that I used in the eighth grade when I wanted to sound fancy and smart like those writers from the Seventeen magazine.  

This misuse of the noble thesaurus smarts more than a riding crop.

The offense: "He puts down his cutlery and regards me intently, his eyes burning with some unfathomable emotion." Cutlery?! Who died and made you the manager of this Olive Garden, ANASTASIA!?

The fix: "He puts down his fork/knife/spoon and looks at me intently, his eyes burning with some unfathomable emotion."

The offense: "To be honest, I prefer my own company, reading a classic British novel, curled up in a chair in the campus library. Not sitting twitching nervously in a colossal glass-and-stone edifice." Oh buh-ruth-er

The fix: "To be honest, I prefer my own company, reading a classic British novel, curled up in a chair in the campus library. Not sitting twitching nervously in a giant glass-and-stone building."

source: Vulture (many other facepalm-worthy examples found therein)

As when I go back and read my middle school feelings journal, the constant appearance of these kinds of sentences is cringeworthy, and I am embarrassed for the author. You can just feel the affect: she was writing and decided "hmm, it's good, but it needs to sound smarter," and then just flung in a handful of highfalutin words (leaving one to wonder what exactly ended up in the editor's trashcan when all these, PLUS 183 repetitions of the word "Crap!" and 173 "Oh my's!" stayed in the published series).

It is for these reasons and many more that I am giving my endorsement for this book as date night fare: Two enthusiastic thumbs up...and directly into my eyeballs.

Such levels of LOL-inducing nonsense are sure to have you and that special someone laughing yourselves silly, and should guarantee that you will thoroughly enjoy your evening. Because laughter is an even better aphrodisiac than oysters or torture[d phrases].

The only safe word you'll need when considering seriously reading this book and/or seeing the movie:  is NO...or something.

*Online. from websites that mock it.  For the love, do not spend money on this.

the guy who wishes he looked like jesse

so that was a fun game. almost every actor that yall guessed was one that i think is pretty foxy and am therefore okay with my husband resembling. EXCEPT the elijah wood vote (that occurred rather too frequently for my tastes. come on, yall.)

here were my 9 favorite guesses (including the real answer). this was a fun collage to make. really took me back to my Tiger Beat days. i thought the guesser of Gerard Butler was WAAAY off until i found this picture (he's top middle) and his face really does favor jesse's. guess i'll just have to go watch 300 again with that in mind...and sign jesse up for a wax and a loincloth/cape.

but the actual actor that the casting agent called jesse about being a stand in for was:

PAUL RUDD!

right?!?! the beyond-yummy love interest from Clueless, AND  indispensable special features reporter in Ron Burgundy's News Team from the ever-quotable and classic, Anchorman.

i lost my mind a little bit when i realized he had JUST starred opposite Tina Fey in a movie and thought, "OMG maybe its a sequel to that movie and jesse will meet her and this is how we become BFF FINALLY!!!"

alas, the movie they're filming is Ant Man and the female lead is probably Evangeline Lily (Kate from LOST...another fave). and double alas...since jesse is too tall at 6'1 to stand in for the 5'10 paul (who is actually pretty tall for an actor!) and wont be taking the role anyway.

if this has taught us anything though, it's that jesse can maybe be a stand in for about 12 other big actors. we'll start filling out his resume and preparing the guest room (nonexistent) for our esteemed future BFFs.

congrats to everyone who nailed it. Tamara edged out Emily by a mere twenty minutes and will be winning a kids scarf for her little girl! 

stand-in

there's a HUGE movie studio (they made the hobbit, les mis, x-men, harry potter, james bond and lots more) opening up a location near us. they are in the process of building like a jillion sound stages very near to jesse's parents house, and our little suburb is soon gonna turn out blockbusters. yee haw.

as fun as it is to think of major films and pretty stars being right up the road, we didnt really see this movie-making industry intersecting with our lives. 

and then jesse got a call yesterday out of the blue. 

a casting agent nearby saw the "jesus hears the orphan" music vid that jesse and layla were in recently and thought he would be perfect as a stand-in for a leading man in a movie being filmed here this summer.

i about died when jesse texted me about because i've had a mega-crush on this actor since i was like 13 (there's a sort-of hint for you). 

anyway, it ended up not working out because my man is too tall by a good 3 inches (another hint) to be an accurate fit for this shrimpy star (not to mention that jesse has a full time job already), but for one glorious, hilarious night we dreamed of jesse and his big break...or at least an awesome instagram photo of him and his guy.

so my question to you is: who do you think the star is that jesse was "talent-spotted" to be a great stand-in for?

here's my boo as a reference.

some more hints: 1. this guy has been around for a while but hasnt been leading man status until the last 5 or so years. so you've probably heard of him or would recognize him. 2. i can almost guarantee youve seen at least one of his movies (and its a favorite if youre like me).

first one to guess it gets....something! like a real life prize. probably.

frozen fractals, all around

yall know we live in atlanta, right? (some of my more metro-area friends would argue that we are actually in the atlanta-adjacent territories of east bumble, but i claim the ATL and i claim it HARRRD, so you can pry my city-zenship from my cold, dead hands, city slickers!).

and you know that we just got "slammed" with 2 inches of snow on tuesday that virtually shut down the entire city for 2 days, leaving thousands stranded for hours upon hours in the gridlocked cars. let me acknowledge that that part was HORRIBLE. my friends stories of their 3 mile commutes taking 10 hours (with screaming children in the car!) made me want to cry. hundreds of kids had to sleep over in their schools as their parents were stuck trying to come pick them up. a baby was even born IN the traffic jams when the laboring mom's car was stuck in traffic! sheeeeesh.

we were fortunate enough to not be stuck in anything like that at all (except i was fully planning to go to IKEA to get some stuff that evening and probably would have insanely attempted it had my contact there not texted me that they were closing the store due to the insanity on the roads). so we got to have a pretty fun snow experience with the kids (with a side of guilt for enjoying something causing so much stress for others).

the kids were dismissed early from school as soon as the flurries began. when they came out to me in carpool line they were losing their minds over the snow.

on the ride home we decided that this was the worlds most perfect time to blast our "frozen" sound track (buy it now. do it) i mean when else in georgia would we have the chance to sing "beware the frozen heart" in an actual snow storm. i about ripped my throat open scream-singing every song.

by the time we were home our yard was almost covered (again, this is a BIG deal in GA where we get flurries maybe every year but actual play-in-the-snow accumulation only once every 3-5). i went up into our attic hoardings where we have amassed just an obscene amount of hand me downs from unknown numbers of lovely people. all i knew was that i have never bought any snow or ski apparel for my children, but possibly somewhere in the bins and bags and piles some better-prepared soul had bestowed something appropriate unto us.

i was thrilled to find ski jackets for both kids and even a ski bib for judah (thank you unknown saviors!) layla had to make do with leggings under sweatpants.

my dope-looking lil' ski bum

after playing a bit in the building snow, i was so sad to realize that the mittens we had for both kids were (duh) not going to work in snow since they were utterly un-waterproof (think target $1 bin basics). the kids started flipping out over their freezing wet hands.

nerdsicle

she kept licking leaves to get the snow in her mouth. and her hat was making her a little quasimodo.

so rather than just taping some plastic bags around their hands, i geniusly decided to "run to target real quick" and get them some waterproof gloves and maybe a ski bib for lay.

a few considerations here:

1. we live in georgia. targets simply do not stock these things. like EVER.

2. it is january and target has had swimsuits on sale here for a good month now. nary a mitten in sight, but oh the bikinis!

3. the snowstorm was causing a mass exodus of everyone from everywhere and already there was HUGE traffic.

so that was the stupidest thing i have done in a good fortnight. we came home empty handed and frazzled after 2 hours in the car for a trip that should have taken 30 minutes (definitely not complaining though considering the commutes of others!)

all of the excitement converging with her usual naptime plus a cozy warm jacket and an extended car trip meant this lil' inuit was done-zo when we pulled in.

after naps jesse came home and got ready to take the kids over to the grand dukes house where there are ample hills, four wheelers, sleds and fun. i was going to stay home to get some sewing done. those jokers had a BLAST (especially when our friends and the dukes' neighbors, the Denny family with their 6 awesome kids came over to play too).

judah and his hero buddy, landon

sledding down the iced driveway like bosses! (let's never discuss the fact that grandaddy appears to be wearing a beret?)

3 of 4 adorable denny girls plus a layla-boo

but before jesse left with the kids, i had an idea. a chance to live out a dream that was not even fully formed yet. it would take two cell phones since i dont know how play music AND shoot video at the same time. this meant i had to do it in front of jesse (since i had his phone) though i would have MUCH MUCH rather been alone.

i would become queen elsa during her power ballad (i posted this on my instagram, but obviously it needs to live here too):

i am the least selfie-loving person ever. i hate the way i look in pictures and video and am pretty standard-girl insecure about looks in general, plus i like to make fun of serial-selfie takers and judge them as vain (i'm jesus, basically). so a selfie video was even more horrifying to me. yet my love for "frozen" and for being a stupid idiot for all the internet to observe won out. i spent a good 5 minutes spinning around our front yard video taping myself. i can only hope that lots of people drove by in this period and got a hearty chuckle out of the weirdo. 

i was so SO close to never letting a soul see this video (especially jesse, for some reason) but in the end i decided to just "let it go" and love it for the ridiculousness that it is.  i am definitely not a "conceal, dont feel" kinda chick, and here i raise my ebenezer that i can rock hard to some disney music.

next snowstorm i will be prepared with an old prom dress and a fishtail braid to shoot a full length version. i'm never going back...the past is in the past.

triple standard questions

that dude from duck dynasty is held to at least three standards that i know of: 

1-american

2-christian

3-employee/public face of a brand. 

in accepting these three roles he has that has placed him under an outside authority and agreed to abide by its standards.

it's obvious he can say whatever he wants under standard #1. no one is trying to imprison him or sue or accuse him of breaking any law. no one is upset at him because of the implications of free speech. and we all know and understand that as an american his right to say what he pleases is stringently protected. 

i am assuming that he signed a contract or agreed to some terms outlining what he agreed to do/not do as a representative of the network when he agreed to and received payment for placing himself under standard #3. 

i believe the network, A&E, is upset and took action based on standard #3 alone. lots of people on the internet (in my circle many of these seem to be fairly outspoken conservative christians) are defending his words under standard #1 (and the rights inherently conferred by it). 

here are my questions and stream of consciousness in thinking through this (i am working through this myself as i go).

is anyone saying that he got fired because he violated the first amendment or did anything wrong related to it? i had understood that A&E is upset because he didnt live up their (stated or not) standard of how their employees behave or speak in public because they are representatives of the network. is that right?

so i guess i am confused because it seems like it's missing the point to defend him against what the network is treating as a breach or failing in standard #3 based on the rights guaranteed by standard #1. no one said he couldnt say what he did, did they? i thought they just said that they couldnt have him representing their business while he let those remarks stand. legally, that is their choice as the employer, right?

and just to double down on the controversy, isnt A&E's choice the exact same one taken by Chickfila when they made their corporate beliefs known through the personal values of their chief? didn't many people speak up and show up to support and defend Chickfila as a business for expressing its own unique values and standing by them?

so then should we, under standard #1, be just as willing to defend A&E's right to have values as a brand/company and to defend them as we/you/yall  were to defend Chickfila's?

or is the the fuss is because he was suspended because of expressing his personal beliefs on homosexuality, while it is illegal for (and woe betide) an employer to suspend or fire someone for their sexual orientation? restated: is the problem that homosexuals are protected from employers by the law, but people who are  morally against homosexuality are not?

ok i can see that. so then you would have a problem under standard #1 and would be wanting to change the law...am i getting that right?

another angle: if we're dealing with legality (under #1 or #3) sexual orientation is protected by law as something that cannot be discriminated against. so then maybe it seems like the duck dynasty guy  is being discriminated against for his religious beliefs (which are also legally protected so that would be illegal)? but hasnt he been loud and proud with his christian faith on and off the show from the get-go? 

if so, then it seems like A&E doesnt have a problem with him saying that his reading of the bible leads him to believe homosexuality is sinful, but moreso that they have a problem with HOW he communicated these beliefs in a printed magazine interview (along with--not gray area here--wildly ignorant comments he also made in this interview about black people).

i wonder what Chickfila would have done if Dan Cathy, in expressing his personal beliefs (almost all of which i am aligned as a fellow Christian), had used the same language or imagery to convey his point. i know its not the same because Dan is the boss, but it is interesting to think of it that way. how would you have reacted if the CEO of Chickfila had said the exact quote below in the interview that brought him into this same sort of hullabalou? just a fun exercise.

(while we're exercising: what if the pope or any neighborhood pastor had "expressed his views" in this manner? i think he would at the very least be reprimanded and likely fired by his christian employers/flock. this is why i dont think i see it as discrimination against christian beliefs so much as the callous and crude way they were expressed.)

so that is as far as my tiny brain gets on the issues that spring out of the constitutionality and employee/employee legality of this thing. but those i dont care so much about.

and maybe i am not looking in the right places (and the place i am looking most is my facebook newsfeed...genius), but i am not hearing a lot of conversation about his remarks in relation to standard #2: that of christ.

isnt that a higher/greater/better/purer/RIGHTER standard than the other two? shouldnt we leave #1 and #3 to people who either A: know what the law and the employment contract say and/or B: the ones who dont yet hold themselves to standard #2?

thats sort of where i have landed. 

the bible talks a A LOT about words and about how dangerous they are and about how we need to guard our tongues. and some of that is definitely applicable here, but the main problem i have with this entire thing is how it fits in with jesus' "greatest command" to love one another like he loves us. to show his love to the world by our love.

and in all of my readings of jesus' encounters with sinners, and from firsthand experience of his dealings with me (a certified sinner)  i just cant see him ever showing his love by talking to or about someone in the way that phil robertson does in this interview:

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine…Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

of course i want expression of the christian faith to be protected legally. i think it is worth defending.  but i guess i just disagree that the statement above is in anyway an expression of the christ i know.

i just had a lot of thoughts bubbling up in me about this as it hits close to home on several fronts. i am just trying to figure all of this out.  but i DID want to make that one clear statement while i am here.

i know that a scattered blog post wont change anyone's mind (just like a million facebook debates wont either),  i am not trying to put a rainbow flag into the hand of a conservative or to evangelize an atheist or to marry a gay man to a woman (i should try a post like that though! sounds like a flippin' blast). i am also definitely not trying to slam a man who has, for the most part, been a refreshing example of a believer in pop culture. if i was a public figure, i would have been burned in effigy so many times by now for the ignorant, rash, unthinking, sinful, dumbhead things i say all the time.

no, i wrote this publicly more for the people who might not have personal experience with the bible or with jesus and who might only hear about him in these sorts of controversies in the hopes of bringing a different voice into the storm and just to say publicly that, as a christian,  i dont think these kinds of words are particularly worth defending in jesus' name. 

thought you should know...

but there are lots and lots of word that i think are worth jesus' name, and i need to be better about saying/writing/living them extra loud.


UPDATE:

1. turns out it isnt illegal in most states for employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

2. really well-written, concise takes from christian perspectives: my friend clay / Rage Against the Minivan / 

caught in adultery

.
i was reading the bible this morning--you know, because that's totally what i do now--and dang if i didnt get full-blown convicted.

this rarely happens. i am a baby at the bible and my immaturity here probably keeps me from hearing from jesus as much as i [say i] want to. but even when i am truly seeking--not just reading or praying because i'm "posed tuh," (as judah would say)--it's not like i always get the magic verse that my heart needs.

i'm totally and embarrassingly guilty of being 30 years old and still doing the whole, "ok god, i am going to flip open the bible and i'll assume that whatever page i land on and read is going to be exactly what you need me to hear. deal?" i am expecting like my LIFE VERSE to come pouring forth and instead it ends up like one of my favorite 30 Rock scenes where Liz is reading 1 corinthians at a wedding and has to stall for time:

Liz: And now, an unscheduled reading that I think is appropriate for this lovely, romantic occasion. “But Onan knew the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground…” Sorry [flipping pages]. “Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin”. Oh, come on, Bible! Help a lady out!

so yeah, i cant say i recommend this method of bible study. 

my plodding along in one chapter, little-by-little, and day-by-day, however,  is less exciting, but so far has borne more fruit for me.

so this morning my plodding brought me to a story that i have heard and read and listened to sermons on a butt-ton of times: the woman caught in adultery.

oh, you know the one; here it is in my own words: 

jesus is teaching and those tricksy, scheming pharisees  (religious bigwigs of the time with mad political power) are trying to punk him out and get him to say something that will damn him as a breaker of the law. 

they bring out this lady whom they have caught in adultery and they put her in front of the crowd that jesus was teaching to. they say, "this chick was adulterating...the law of moses says we should throw rocks at her head until she dies...what do YOU think we should do?"

and jesus kind of just ignores them and he sits down and he just starts doodling in the dust with his finger. (actually it says he WRITES in the dust which is cool because it means jesus was literate which wasnt super common back then).

and the pharisees are all. "um, rude. HELLO?!? answer us!"

so jesus stands up and says the famous, "whoever hasnt sinned gets to throw the first stone at her." and then he goes back to dust-writing.

all of the accusers hear this and drift away one by one (boo-ya!) and it's just jesus and the woman (who was pretty much just there/ignored all along as a prop for the pharisees to use in their scheme) are alone in the middle of the crowd of listeners.

he asks her where all of her accusers have gone; didnt even one of them condemn her? and she says, no, lord.

and jesus says "neither do i. go and sin no more."

so every time i have heard this i cast myself in one of two roles. A: the woman: before i loved jesus i was guilty of, and totally busted in, so many situations turning away from god, sexual impurity (though not adultery) included. but then i was redeemed--NOT CONDEMNED--by him. 

or B: i cast myself as jesus, as the protector and lover of sinners who doesnt condemn them, and even defends them from those who would try to shame and kill them with accusations. since i have become a christian my whole life should be spent acting more and more like jesus...so naturally this is the role i should gravitate toward in the story and the one my life should most reflect.

oh, but wait. 

it turns out i'm playing role C, the pharisees, a lot more than would like to admit. this was what jesus gently showed me this morning as i was reading the story, and trying to cast myself as him.

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

the miley cyrus thing is dead to death of being talked about, but this was the specific thing he used today. not how i blogged about her, or the over-the-top jokes i took too far, but the heart issue IN ME (not her) of why i reacted to her performance in that way.

like he always does, jesus threw a curveball (never a stone) at me. he reminded me of when i dragged miley in front of him and the crowd, and said, "look at this little slut! isnt this shameful how she is acting! let's get her...oh, but in the name of love and upholding the standards of christ... blah, blah, blah, sure, sure, yeah, like that. now, where is my rock?"

and there he is, sitting quietly in the dust, letting me spew all of my condemnation until i have nothing left to say, and i'm just waiting for him to agree with me (i even picked out a nice rock for him because i'm helpful like that).

and like every scholar and reader (and annoyed pharisee probably , i am DYING to know what he's writing in the dust. the bible doesnt say (and my aramaic is rusty anyhow).

he gets up and instead of talking about HER, he looks at me and asks about my story. about my mistakes, my wounded heart and redeemed sins. 

and i fiddle with my rock and am all like, "hold up, this isnt about me! i havent been caught being adulterous! i've never even worn a mouse-head leotard and a foam finger! i twerketh not!  I AM GOOD!"

and with that pathetic, pharisaical cry, my eyes are opened, and i can finally read his dust-writing :

"precious daughter, remember those times you gave your body away?"

"remember when you tried to find your value in a man's lust?"

"do you remember the brokenness of realizing what you had given up?"

and the rock slips from my fingers and the condemnation vanishes from my lips. it has been years, and yet i am still the the used and broken woman. broken not by adultery or lust anymore, but by judgement and pride and so much more. used by satan to bring destruction instead of life because i believed his lies instead of remembering how lost i was too before He rescued me.

i think of all my sin; of how much He knows, of how short i fall. 

i look back to the dust, doomed by the knowledge that all my new transgressions will right there alongside the old, surely he will have recorded my hypocrisy, my cruelty. is there even enough dust on the ground to spell it all out?

but it's gone. 

every bit. 

there is nothing written against me.

it was written in dust and carried away on the wind in an instant. if i am east, my sins are west. the accusations against me have melted away. 

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

the pharisees sure looked good that day, especially compared to the woman. 

they were all smart about the law of moses and sparkly in their special temple underpants and color-coded hats, standing there holding their rocks. 

and that poor woman, she was disheveled and red-faced; ashamed at being caught by the religious leaders in adultery and thrown down in the dust before the crowd, before the rabbi. 

it's not too hard to see why the role of pharisee is such a tempting, sneaky lie that we drift back to. it does look like "more fun."

but i am never going to reach my heart desire and soul's duty of being like jesus by trying to act like a pharisee. satan ever tries to trick me into thinking that if i pile enough sparkles on me and enough accusations on others, i'll somehow accomplish something for myself, but boy, what a lie. 

the way to jesus is straight through the dirt and dust. it's through seeing just how covered by it and choking on it i really am. and through letting him blow every speck of it away, and never forgetting that i am a child of dust ransomed to spotless life by "he who is without sin," the only one with a right to throw stones, condemn and shame me but who never, ever will. 

so i can hold on to my pathetic little rock, hoping to catch other people falling short, hurling my empty righteousness at them and bringing them low. OR i can stand on the solid rock of jesus. the christ the solid, perfect rock that no sin could ever etch, but that he chose to engrave with my name. 

like so much sin in my life, i tend to try to make it someone else's problem. it was never about miley. it was always about me, and that's never fun. but it is convenient since i'm the only one i have any control over anyway. i'm going to take that control and, in true VMA style, "hold up, hold up, imma let jesus finish" the work in me that he wants to do.

i'm not saying it's exactly the same as this...but it's close enough to depict the similarities of what i bet was going on in the hearts of these two different 20 year olds, 10 years apart. (also: she didnt have her tongue pierced)

*call me, miley! i think i'm finally mature enough to talk to you.