A pregnant woman's thoughts on culture's "Shrinking Women".

I've linked to this spoken poetry video before (because it's awesome), but I didn't comment on the content specifically. The poet talks about her "shrinking" mother being unsure "how much space she deserves to occupy" (see minute mark 2:30ish), and my self-consciousness about my newly expanding pregnant belly reminded me of this video.

Partly I think of this because I have always been self-conscious of my less-than-toned-abs, and have done my best to arrange my wardrobe to distract from that area. Then, suddenly, my second trimester belly is the source of attention and adoration. While this is cultural and sweet, I find that I can't simply change my mindset overnight, as it has been cultivated over years of insecure womanhood. When people tell me that my belly is "beautiful," I honestly have to think for a moment about why they would ever say that... especially say it out loud. Aren't others supposed to graciously ignore the bodily imperfections we are insecure about? ...And then I remember these people are referring to a baby bump. Perspective shift is a funny thing, isn't it?

And partly I identify with that line of the poem because my job as a medical assistant often requires invisible presence: I must physically help with my hands, but otherwise be silent and out of the way. During surgeries, I hold my sterile-gloved hands far away from my body, holding suture scissors and a tail of thread, being as still as possible, while the doctor is wedged up next to the patient to sew her up. This is normal and totally fine with me on a regular day. Lately, however, I wonder, Where will my 36 week belly fit in those situations, when I get to that point? Certainly my belly (and baby) deserve to occupy however much space they require, but it's not convenient.

Just like it's not convenient to be a "larger" person and fit into the backseat of a car with too many peers as we drive to Sonic for a late-night milkshake. Just like it's not convenient to be a "larger" woman in our culture--and I'm not even plus-size! I'll never forget the time in college when a big group of us were going on a road trip to a conference for the weekend, and we were short on cars. One of the guys looked from the remaining girls on the sidewalk to the last backseat of a car, and said frankly, "They're girls! Just squish 'em all together."

Do you see?
Do you see what that shows? That comment has stuck with me a long time. My friend didn't mean to be hurtful, of course. But do you see how culturally ingrained the shrunken "space that women deserve" is? Because college men "deserve" a different amount of personal space. You may not agree, but I believe he never would have said that about a bunch of guys of equivalent sizes.

It's not only inconvenient for women to take up as much space as men, but we are taught we must also recognize and apologize for what space we do occupy. The poet's words are so apt when she shares her own experiences. "I have been taught accommodation. My brother never thinks before he speaks; I have been taught to filter....  You have been taught to grow out, I have been taught to grow in." Elsewhere, she observes, "I asked five questions in genetics class today, and all of them started with the word 'Sorry...'" It's incredibly subtle, this aspect of womanhood, but do you see it?

I read a wonderfully insightful book last year called "Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead" written by the COO of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg. She cited studies that support these observations about accommodation: for example, men are pushier with their questions and will often blurt them out even after a speaker's Q&A session is over. Often those questions still get answered, but women's don't get their equally-valid questions answered because they didn't push. Women put their hands down and obey the rules. They accommodate. They filter.

This is not a rant. I am not complaining, truly. Maybe you think this is the craziest perspective on pregnancy ever, something that should be a miracle and a glorious experience. And please hear me, I am thrilled and grateful to be expecting a healthy girl. It is wonderful! I just see that years of subconsciously apologizing, long before I was pregnant, has made this difficult to unlearn. I am just saying, here and now, I do not want to apologize for my "inconveniently" expanding belly. Pregnancy even gets a special opt-out clause in this area, but I think this has been the opportunity to learn to stop my spacial insecurity-- forever. I think that is what this comes to for me: I have been taught to grow in, and do so invisibly. So growing out is decidedly difficult... yet good for me.


--Ellen H.

20 week ultrasound photo and bump<3 br="">

Doing something that matters with what you've got.

I came across a thought-provoking blogger today and I am so intrigued and confused, I've got to write some of it down to organize my thoughts and figure out if I agree or not.

I think I used to be a fundamentalist. It's explained well in his blog here: http://davidmschell.com/god-prejudiced-my-behalf and other posts on his site. Basically, he takes fundamentalism to mean God --> Bible --> Mind as Truth. The blogger's point is to remind people that there is a lot of context and process between those things: the author's culture and worldview, then translation of text from language to language, to name a few... then to be understood in our mind through the lens of our worldviews, church traditions (ex. Protestant vs Catholic), etc. That is such a good point. Considering all factors is important.

I don't think I'm a fundamentalist anymore, for this reason and others. My point is, amazingly, the Holy Spirit still works through the Bible. Even with all those things in between, my beliefs mean that God still uses what little we understand of the Bible and makes it useful, often. Yes, former Christians justified slavery with the Bible, which was sad. But a lot of Christians are agreeing that Jesus taught Love, Forgiveness, and that the gospel means Grace over Legalism. I think that means the Holy Spirit is getting through to many of us, at least in part! We can still agree on that, I hope, whether or not you believe that the Bible is inerrant (perfectly true and contains no mistakes).  Jesus memorized, quoted and affirmed many Old Testament passages as being relevant and true, so I do.

I'm saying all this because you eventually have to do something that matters with what you've got. I think that's where I'm confused with this blogger. He is defining his views on who Christians can be (gays) and don't have to be (political conservatives). And that's helpful for him. I am already planning on learning to love everyone I meet and create space for where they're at with Jesus and spirituality, because God loves us all where we begin. But for me, I need to know what to do with the Bible that is or is not inerrant. Because it's still important to my spiritual life. I need to know what to do with evangelism (which this blogger had a beef with), because if God is continually drawing people to Himself (see 2 Corinthians 5:18), what is my role in that? I don't want to just tip-toe around People I Might Offend and only say what we shouldn't do with it. I have to distill what little I believe I understand from Jesus' life and the Bible and then do something useful in this world with it.

David-the-blogger says he's bothered by Christians making it their purpose to evangelize to others. He even says that evangelicals are motivated to believe that Gallup polls on percentages of Christians in America are inflated, so that they'll have a higher portion of people to convert and because "it just couldn't be true" so many people live so differently than they, the conservative evangelical/fundamentalist Americans.

And he has a point: we as Christians shouldn't just go around looking to convert every suspicious person. Then we'd all just be awkward, house-calling Mormons, and I as a devout Christian dislike that. People can sniff out an agenda a mile away! Jesus was about hearing people's stories where they were at and healing them, inside and out. David-the-blogger says just love, I guess, and don't evangelize because we don't even know who is a "true" Christian or not. And yes, the wheat and chaff will be separated at the end, by God (Matthew 3:12), not by judgmental Christians... But, personally, I don't believe that one in four people living in America are Christians (Gallup poll data) either because I personally know people who consider themselves Christians who know very little about Christ, and admit they're not living out what he did and said. We can argue all day about what exactly makes someone a "Real Christian", but knowing and emulating something about the "Christ-" part of that word is probably high on the list!

Response #1: "That's offensive. We're all children of God already." Okay, so you're a universalist. Jesus said there are sheep and goats, humble and Pharisees. He said that some people would be punished for their life, after death. Based on that, I'd say Christ was not a universalist. (See John 1:12)
Response #2: "I believe in God. I pray. That's what matters." Okay, so you're a theist. That's not the same as Christian. That does not sum up the gospel. (James 2:9)

I attend a Vineyard church these days and I have heard some helpful pictures explained for this situation. Fundamentalism and even evangelicalism can burn a lot of people because it's always the "in crowd" vs the "out crowd". (The Pharisees were like that too! And Jesus sure didn't like them!) But I like the picture called the "Centered Set": Jesus is a dot in the center and all people are dots somewhere around Him. 

There's no line or circle drawn for dots closest, just directions of those dots. Is a far-away dot moving towards Jesus? Then that's what counts right now, as Jesus draws that person to Himself. Is there a close dot that's moving away from Jesus? If there were a circle drawn, Close Dot would be "In" but God desires that person's motion to be ever toward, not away. So I'm less concerned with defining who's in and who's out, and more concerned with loving people well, and hearing their stories when they're ready to share them, and encouraging them to move toward Jesus.  As one commenter on David's site said, that's telling them about the transformative, inclusive "life to the full" that Jesus preached (John 10:10). I think a lot of people could be open to hearing about that!

But David has a gap there: if evangelism is not a major purpose in the lives of Christians, what is? "Just love"? Then why was Paul of the early Church so adamant about going to lots of places to preach? What are we to do with Jesus' last recorded command in Scripture? "Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I will be with you, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:19) I know a lot of people have been hurt by unloving faith-sharing, but --gasp!-- I do think it's possible to share what's transformed my life in a loving way! "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15)

Another point this blogger brings up, and is a big part of current debate, is whether biblical passages should be taken literally. For this I am grateful for whoever pointed out a certain story in the book of Acts of the New Testament. The background is that the early Church began as Jewish guys who personally knew Jesus, coming from the Old Testament and Jewish tradition (there were extra-biblical texts that listed a lot of Jewish teaching and customs beyond the OT). But since these guys started figuring out that Jesus meant His salvation was for everyone, not just Jews, these new Christians had to decide how much was vital to pass on, and how much was just culturally significant tradition for them to hold on to. (Note: all verses are NIV translation and emphases are mine.)

Acts 15, v1: 'Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.'
[So Paul says.. v 7:]"God made a choice among you that the Gentiles [non-Jews] might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us." [Paul continues in v19]: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

So in the letter to new believers, they say it so humbly and gently [v28]: 

 "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:..." 

and listed what Paul said. At the end of the letter, they justify what they chose simply [v29],

 "You will do well to avoid these things."

Isn't that sweet? They wanted to be the most helpful towards faith and the least obstructing. Considering all the laws and rules in the Old Testament, they boiled it down so much! This is more on a practical side of how to be a Christian-in-the-early-church, but maybe it could have applied theologically too. Like, they're probably going to disagree on things, now that the gospel is spreading beyond the Jews. It would get to get more and more complicated in how people interpreted things. Also, Jesus preached following the Lord with your heart ("God, who knows your heart" quoted above), more than by legalistic religious acts, so Jewish customs everywhere would have been seriously burdensome and very difficult to include in evangelism. That is, to borrow a phrase from my parents, "Major on the majors, and minor on the minors." Put more effort into what's more agreed upon and more central to the faith, and less (not none) into the rest.
  
So that's great for David-the-blogger's case: taking the entire Bible literally is going to weigh people down more than it's going to show them the Big Picture, which is redemption available to everyone through Jesus. But I do think that what they do include is telling: sexual immorality is a big category, one which requires discussion today to decide what all was meant there. But I won't go into that here.

So that's all I'll say today. Just needed some writing space to work through my reactions to current Christianity issues that are being debated.

Ever thoughtful, trying to be practical, I remain
Ellen H.

Faceoff: Brides Magazine vs. Our Wedding

Blog-readers I've returned. The wedding and honeymoon are over, the guests have all gone home, and my new husband and I have begun to settle into routine with work and home life. Each month, however, I still receive an issue of Brides magazine, since I have a free, one-year subscription from creating a registry at JCPenney. Reading the latest issue, I was finally able to compare all the aspects (now wondrously set in stone) of my own wedding to their advice and ideals.

Can I say right here how glad I am how different ours was, compared to the "perfect" ones pictured in those pages? Heck yes. So here is my brief breakdown of 5 of their "wedding must-haves" and how we did it differently!

1. The Long Timeline
Every issue of Brides includes a year-long calendar leading up to the Big Day that lists what to do, in what order, to prepare.

How we were different: Our engagement only lasted 5.5 months. Know what I was doing a year prior to my marriage? Wondering if our relationship was still going to be long-distance in a year! (No offense to couples who are engaged longer, but it was a blessing for us not to wait that long, for several reasons!)

2. The Fabulous Dress
Brides magazine says (in my words): "Spend hours browsing pictures of models in couture gowns. Eventually find the Perfect one for you. Pay nearly anything to buy it...you'll be wearing it during THE most important 1-6 hours of your life!"

What we did: I clipped some magazine pictures. I looked for sales. I bought a dress the second time I entered a store. Then I made my own sash to go with it, and borrowed my sister's veil. Shazam. Beautiful, time-saving and it didn't break the budget.

3. Details Are Everything
Brides says: "Every detail should match your theme. Every details should shout YOU. In fact, the more adorable details, the better. Spend hours pouring over ones you can buy, or spend even more hours making your own so-cute-you-could-die details."

What we did: I bought decorations in one day. Having no knack for decoration myself, I left the final set-up in the hands of many female (and a male) friends, and it turned out simple yet great!

4. Cake Obsession
Brides says: "After the dress, this is the next best important object of the wedding. Pay through the nose to have it look exactly like you want.
Looks > Taste, of course."

What we did: I got quotes from 2 vendors. I decided based on cost and reputation for taste. (Taste > Looks.) In the end, we had twice as much cake as we needed...oops! For all our planning, it just couldn't be foreseen. Those are some expensive leftovers... Cake, anyone?

5. Here comes the... groom?
Brides says (rather, implies): "The groom has few opinions, and even those can be overridden. He should basically not intrude in wedding plans because this is bride-dominion-only. But he should be model-like handsome... gotta make the best of those professional pictures, right?"

What we did: My fiance booked the honeymoon plans himself. He took care of the groomsmen suits. He was with me to taste cake and dinner samples.... And he's doing exactly half of the gift thank-you's. That's perfect for me! (And he was handsome anyway!)


I promise I'm not bitter toward Brides--I always knew they cater to a demographic with more money, more style, and more bridal-obsession than I have. I clipped pictures from their pages to form ideas and show others what I was thinking of. For a free magazine, that's great! I just have to say that while our wedding day turned out beautiful, fun and very special, I am so relieved to be through with the planning, and now onto the best part: Ever After.

And a happy one it is. :-)

Thoughtfully yours,
Ellen H.

RSVP, anyone?

RSVP means "respond please" in French. Is here something culturally that's going on that makes that phrase have no meaning?

Yes, I'm going to do a bit of ranting here. I am currently planning a wedding--my own, that is-- and collecting RSVPs is proving to be exceedingly difficult. I set up an online website for responses so I understand that older folks might consider this an obstacle. But I am far more frustrated by the large chunk of invitees who are my ever-connected, Web-savvy peers. I've heard it all: "I was so busy!" "I forgot!" and the most infuriating lack of excuse at all. Is this individualism at its strongest? "My excuse beats your request, no matter what."
:-(
It takes 2 minutes to RSVP. No one is that busy. Not that many people are forgetful. Planning a house party for 10 is hard enough... planning the difference in budget and space between 100 and 150 guests for a wedding reception is much harder!

Sigh. I am not one to say that this generation is overall worse than the last. But the lack of consideration is just astounding. Have RSVPs have gone the way of handwriting lessons, now considered obsolete? Funny thing is, last I heard, people are still planning weddings these days, so I can't see how guest counts aren't still useful... Or maybe our up-to-the-minute communication methods have made us believe that everything can be last minute? That makes more sense, but advance notice has its place!

Okay, okay, I'm complaining a lot. The bright side? I've learned a valuable lesson for myself for years to come: RSVP, Ellen. People appreciate it.

Woot. (That's sarcasm for "hooray.")
--Ellen 
 
P.S. Add this frustration to the long list of reasons why it's a good idea to only get married once. ;-)

Weddings on the mind... and nerves

Hello all!
It's been quite some time since I blogged, so it's time again. As many of you know, I am engaged (as of one month ago!) and set to marry in March. Time will go by quick! And I am learning a lot! As exciting as it is to prepare for being married to the love of my life, I'm feeling the need to rant about the annoying parts of engagement...

Things I Dislike:

• Since 5.5 months is a short engagement by American culture standards, I am continually being told that there's barely enough time to get everything done. Hurry, hurry! Worry, worry!
• How much everything costs. I knew this would be the case, but boy, just when you think you've thought of everything, you haven't. Granted, I'm going to be as resourceful and creative as possible, but I'm still in the learning process, but it's pretty ridiculous sometimes!
• How wedding planning starts overshadowing the Bigger Picture: being married For The Rest Of Your Life. I'm not in love with wedding planning in the first place, but even for me, it is a fight to keep it all in perspective. Pre-marriage counseling, however, helps a lot to counteract this effect.
• How it's all about the Bride (and barely about the Groom). I know that girls tend to get more excited about being the princess for a day (and bows, candles, deco, etc, etc). but it's a momentous day for the groom too. He may even care more (gasp!) about the food than I will, and he often has opinions of his own about design. Thankfully, I'm blessed to be engaged to someone who wants to be involved and feel free to share his ideas.
• Being told we're too young. Although people are free to have their own opinions about the ideal age to get married, I have heard plenty of success stories of couples who married in their early 20s. I've been out of high school for over 4 years, and I have grown a lot in that time. Honestly, I believe that more important than age is relative maturity, a similar belief system, and a commitment to work through tough times.

So there's my rant. Of course, this doesn't compare to the longer list of great and fun things about engagement and marriage. I am thankful for so many aspects of this crazy process, and for all of the people in my life, both supportive and willing to voice their opinion. Please understand that I welcome people's views that differ from mine; I just needed a chance to let mine be heard. If I get too obsessed with this whole wedding preparation thing, by all means let me know!

So here's to taking the risk of the Adventure of a Lifetime with my best friend, and to supporting Kingdom values that differ so much from the culture who wants to play "Pretty Pretty Princess."
Thoughtfully yours,
Ellen P.

At the University of Future...

Journal Entry
Date: April 5, 1711

I always knew that the robo-students at this University of Future were particularly strange, but now I've figured it out: it's the source of their energy. Every student has access to electronic panels and they charge their energy through their hands, feverishly tapping their fingertips on keys or resting their right palm on a sliding piece attached to this panel. Most students have a personal panel and do this in the privacy of their rooms, but other bring them portable screens to class and other locations with them. Even the local library holds many books, exactly of the type that I am familiar with, but many students can't even make it to the lower or upper levels of the library to rooms with those books unless they first stop at a screen to soak up energy. These students must not have a interior generator to recharge their energy on their own. And around campus, many have cords going into their ears, so this must be another way of charging when they cannot be at their primary energy panel.

Their lifestyle must be particularly tiring for the need for all this recharging, and I think I have also identified the main source of their fatigue: the dream-state. You see, every robo-student is recommended to get about 7 hours of dream-state every night, but it must be a rather dreadful experience for them, considering how they avoid it. Some stay attached to their panels for hours before pulling themselves away to face the work of dream-state, others put powerful liquids into themselves to avoid it as long as possible. I can only imagine what this dream-state must be like to cause them to go to such extremes.

Yet not all robo-students are like this. I have seen some, though rare, students go for one day or several without attachment to electronic panels. This happens more often when they are not attending classes, but not always. Some even claim that this experience is good for them, and indeed at times they seem more refreshed from their dream-state work than their energy transfer at the electronic panels.
Either way, what a strange life.

As for me, I think it's time to sleep.
--Ellen