Joseph's Self-Control

Commentary
by Cantice

Like a few of you out there, I paid my ten dollars and watched “The Nativity Story.” Before watching it, I had read reviews that rated it from a C- to an A. I’m no movie critic; I’ve given enough grades in my young teaching career to decline that role. But, I enjoyed the movie enough to want to pay to see it a second time with my husband, having gone with a group of church small group workers the first time around.

The script followed the biblical account very closely, so those who were looking for a scandalous twist in the story were probably disappointed. The three wise men took a more central role than that depicted in the book of Matthew, partially to serve as comic relief, but everything else was by the book. So why would I want to see it again? Because of Joseph.

Call me a hopeless romantic, but Joseph’s chivalry in the movie was wildly attractive. Mary’s faith was awe-inspiring—one of the reasons we tend to acknowledge her virtue even in the protestant tradition, but this movie paid tribute to Joseph’s loyalty, a character which is often overlooked. Joseph kept his marriage vow to a woman who returned to him from a short vacation pregnant and showing. He did it within a culture that valued genealogy and sexual morality. Notwithstanding the cultural disdain, he took Mary as his wife, and continued to honor her by doing all that was within his power to provide for her safe and healthy pregnancy and delivery. On a trip that took several weeks, he offered her the best of his food. She rode the transportation (a donkey) as he walked beside it. He stopped for warmth when she was cold. And on that several weeks-long trip, he didn’t violate the Jewish custom of waiting a year (after giving his initial vow) to consummate the marriage.

What would Joseph’s self-control look like in a man today? Choosing a wife based on his perception of her character rather than on her “bootyliciousness”? Establishing his career and building/buying or preparing a home for his wife to come in to? Working and saving money so that the two of them wouldn’t have to start off struggling? Taming his sexual urges while single so that adultery would not be a factor leading to his divorce? What, no internet porn? No masturbation and strip club habits?

I can’t give all the credit for Joseph’s conduct to his pragmatic way of life. Joseph had faith. He had to have it in order to endure the ridicule of friends and family who wanted to, but refrained from calling him “stupid” to his face. He had faith that being merciful would pay off in the end, that thinking the best of people wouldn’t necessarily let him down. He had faith that God would make everything alright eventually.

I wonder if we can even dream of building relationships based on faith in each other any more. Or those based on honoring each other, even when things aren’t adding up. I know I need a refresher course on thinking the best of my husband at all times. Even as I write this, I’m thinking of the subtle way God has encouraged me to build my husband up frequently as we continue our journey together.

Response
By Wanda

I am midway through finals, so I have barely seen the light of day let alone a movie. And rarely, if ever am I left speechless. But after reading your commentary the only thing I can say is “Bah Humbug.” The idea of faith in your man or woman even when everything doesn’t add up sounds like an evangelical women’s ministry session or even worse a bad Lifetime movie. However, the idea of meeting a "Joseph" would be a great pick me upper for the holiday season.

We know very little about Joseph's character, but its not too hard to believe that he was an exceptional man. After all he was chosen as the "father" of Jesus Christ. Chivalry should never go out of style, it's like the perfect black cocktail dress. A man with qualities like Joseph are admirable, uncommon, but nevertheless something to look for in a man ( or a woman). I am not a hopeless romantic, nor am I "in love" with being in love, but I do appreciate romance. And it's always nice when you come across a man that has a high level of moral and personal constraint. We need more men with Joseph's character, unfornately society doesn't reward "nice guys" nor do women make significant moral demands on their future husband or husbands; we typically take 'em how we can get 'em.

Blindly believing or trusting your mate is insane. Respect and trust are daily exercises. I am not saying that relationships should be built on suspicion but a small amount of doubt in your faith is healthy (Remember the movie The Sound of Music). The only relationship where one should exercise a “faith when things don’t always add up” is the one you have with Christ. Everyone else is up for evaluation.

Her Mic Sounds Nice – But Hip-Hop Won’t Give Her A Chance

Commentary by Wanda

I love rap music of yesterday and today (without the vulgarities, of course) but I avoid attending any concerts for fear of getting groped, hit with a chair, trampled, or killed with a stray bullet. Nevertheless, I take advantage of any opportunity to hear a live performance. About a month ago, BET held its first annual Hip-Hop awards in Atlanta, Georgia. The show went off without a hitch. As I viewed the category nominees and cheered for the winners, time after time men marched onto the stage. Even the categories took on male personas – Hustler of the Year, MVP, People’s Champ Award. Out of the 17 categories only one woman, Mary J. Blige, walked off as a winner on a collaborative live performance with Busta Rhymes. It immediately hit me…Hip Hop has been confiscated by men! Although it started as a male movement, there were large spans of time when women were important players in the industry. But since Gangsta rap and the insurgence of violent and sexist lyrics, the industry has limited the role of women in Hip-Hop.

This is not a clarion call for a return to the rap music of the 80’s. It is my attempt to honor the redeeming qualities of Hip Hop in our culture and question why it is exclusively male. Has Hip Hop become a way for black men to claim ground that they have lost in most other sectors of the business world? Maybe this is the way that men carve out a space for themselves that has not been given to them in other areas of their lives. I sympathize with black men; but, I don’t think that lost ground elsewhere gives them a license to dominate, discriminate, exploit or silence women. It appears now that women can only find their place in Hip Hop as the backdrop by singing a hook, dancing or modeling, with the exception of a few token female rappers like Missy Elliot. Nevertheless female rappers like Salt N Pepa, MC Lyte, Queen Latifah, Roxanne, Lauryn Hill, the late Lisa Left Eye Lopez, Da Brat, Eve are slowly becoming icons of the past. Unfortunately, our young female lyricists seem to only find their place in R&B songwriting or spoken word venues.

Today Hip Hop is only inspiring a future generation of men. It has transformed itself into a multi-millionaire dollar industry and why shouldn’t girls get a piece of the pie? Young men have role models like Puff Daddy, Jay-Z, 50 Cent, and others who acquired multi-million dollar endorsements. These entrepreneurs and businessmen promote this type of ingenuity in their male fans, but young girls are not inspired to achieve a respectable level within the industry. I know that it is easy to place all the blame on men, but women in the industry, such as Debra Lee, CEO and Chairperson of BET, have a responsibility to the future of Hip-Hop. And it appears that most of the female rappers could care less about inspiring the next generation of lyricists, although Salt N Pepa and others were their inspiration. Hip-Hop is and will always be a social movement. It stands juxtaposed against mainstream and traditional black music. It should always have something different and relevant to say. It has always given a voice to the youth, and should always be one type of channel to engage their stories. But that collective story should include what it means for young women to grow up in the inner city. She has a story too, and it should be told and respected. The Hip-Hop community has a long way to go when it comes to gender equality and the elimination of misogynistic behavior. The perpetuation of patriarchy (embedded in the DNA of the black community) only legitimizes this type of discrimination.

Response by Cantice

I'll be brief, since Wanda wasn't. I am unqualified to speak about Hip Hop in any significant way. I stopped being a loyal fan years ago. Every now and again while substitute teaching or attending a youth conference, I'd catch an earful of lyrics that confirmed that my decision not to support mainstream Hip Hop was a good one. The last good Hip Hop I heard was by the Verbs (to the Knowda) at a church Hip Hop extravaganza in the summer of '05. The Verbs rocked da' party. I wanted to dance and scream and chant, but I was too old and the younguns wasn't feeling it like I was (what do they know?). Needless to say, I love good music and Hip Hop is no exception.

But, as with some other things, I am not an equal opportunity employer when it comes to Hip Hop. My heart is not really gripped by a lack of gendered affirmative action in the field. This vacancy of frontrunning women in the Hip Hop industry could be a result of women assessing the field and choosing not to be a part of the madness. Still, Wanda's commentary addresses an issue that is dear to me, the issue of mentorship. What may be true of women is that we are such an integral part of keeping our own families and churches running that we don't make time to nurture the hopes of those not related to us. Since some men don't play as large a role in the family and in church organization, they may have extra time to reach back to the would be industry moguls of tomorrow. All this is just speculation. I may be trying too hard to say something thoughtful about this phenomenon that gripped Wanda to the point of addressing it for you, the public, to ponder.

Overall, I still believe that those who want to rock da' mic' bad enough will make it happen for themselves. And those seeking mentors will make the connection. American Idol can’t be a better example of the fact that anybody can make it, if they have the heart. So I say, ladies, pump it up.

I am what I am

Commentary by Cantice

Some of my Christian friends don’t like that some statesmen and women “legislate Christianity.” I’ve never really asked them what they mean. But I’ve supposed that they mean that Christian statesmen and women fight to make things like partial-birth abortion illegal, and they support legislation that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A notable local move from a Christian power perspective happened in Cobb County two years ago. Educators placed the sticker “Evolution is a theory not a fact…” on high school science text books. The gesture was an attempt to present multiple perspectives on the origin of humanity and to include within those perspectives intelligent design. Later citizens commenting on the move said they were embarrassed by the sticker and felt that it set back the school system in terms of its academic progress. Many supported these statements, feeling that any reference to creationism constituted an effort to teach religion.

The other day I came across a title by Josh McDowell called The Last Christian Generation and it got me to wondering. What exactly does a secular generation look like? In this country, a majority of the population continues to classify itself as Christian, but research by George Barna and Associates continues to challenge our assertions. Questions like, do you believe that the Bible should dictate personal behavior, and, do you believe that all religions lead to God, uncover that the balance is shifting, and according to Josh McDowell, will soon tip the scales in the favor of secularism. Secularism deprivileges a God-fearing/believing perspective which leaves behind immorality. I believe that we have only begun to see sexual, economic, and relational immorality in American culture. But to me it doesn’t seem foreign. Readers of The Old Testament have seen snapshots of immorality in vivid color as often as they have chosen to remind themselves why we need a Savior. Whether in the account of the Children of Israel who began to sell their children in order to pay their taxes (Nehemiah 5) or in Genesis 19 when the men of the city beat on Lot’s door to “know carnally” the two angels that had come to visit him, secularism is gross in the most genuine sense of the word.

One thing that educators, parents and ministers must pass on to young adults today is that no one exists without bias. We are all colored by our experiences and understanding of the world, which is also known as ideology or religion. That ideology/religion may be Christian environmental, secular homo-normative, radical queer, feminist capitalistic, or anything outside or in between. Somewhere along the way we began believing that post-modernism allowed us to see the world as fragmented and that we could belong to two or more contradicting groups (ironically, in the last decade, we have also seen a rise in reported bipolar disorders). Somehow today we expect people to turn off their ideologies if they’re Christian. But why should Christian people in power claim that they can not make decisions based on their religion, when that is what secular people do all the time? If a person is not voting values, just what exactly is guiding that vote?

Response
By Wanda

Whistling, humming, tapping pencil on table, while gazing out of window and chewing gum, now blowing a bubble, admiring the size of the bubble, pops the bubble, continue chewing…. Oh yeah, I’m sorry Cantice wants me to respond to this prophetic call to utopia. Cantice, I don’t understand why you don’t just kill me now, why do you insist on torturing me.

As I boldly indicated in a recent blog, just voting on issues of abortion and same-sex unions is a joke. I don’t know if I agree totally with the term “legislating Christianity” but I get the point. However, readers, you should have once again noticed that Cantice does not acknowledge the socio-economic issues that also tie into our faith. If these “statespersons” were truly moral they would enact the ministry of Jesus. They would take care of the poor and the widows, reach out to the foreigner and embrace them as family. Many of our “moral statesmen” suffer from hatred of the poor, disregard for the (poor) elderly, xenophobia and the list goes on and on and on…Additionally, Cantice complains “Why should religious people in power claim that they can not make decisions based on their religion, when secular people do all the time?” I am going to say something very shocking, “CHRISTIANS ARE NOT IN COMPETITION WITH THE WORLD!!!” Are you reading the bible? You know the bible that we all firmly state is our moral compass. You might want to check out the Beatitudes in Matthew, or just look at Paul’s life, or read the gospels. Christians are anti-normative, against the trends, a subculture. But if you listen to many you believe that we should run the world. Give me a break. Experiencing resistance is nothing new for Christians, the early church dealt with it, radical protestant movements experienced it and 20th century holiness endured it…so get over it!

A true moral leader embodies morality in every area that affects our society – and in this day and age that type of leader is an enigma (if you can find one I say we tie her down and study her DNA.) Being moral is a way of life, not an “anti–something” slogan. Standing up against partial birth abortion and same sex unions does not conclusively make you a “moral” statesperson. And finally, I agree that people should vote values – the right to life, right to healthcare, right to quality education, and the right to provide for their families.

Letters to Our Fellow Candler Classmates

This week’s blog focuses on a race incident that occurred between Candler School of Theology students at a recent Halloween house party. The students involved have addressed letters to the Candler community about the disconnection between the ideal and reality of race relations on campus.

On Black (brown) Face…
By Ashon

The Offense…
“I don't have a racist bone in my body…”
“I asked my black friends if dressing like Lil John would be offensive and they all said no…”
The Response…
“You should say something; I’m offended…”
“I didn’t know what to do…”

A school colleague of mine dressed as Lil John for Halloween, complete with “rasta locs,” an iced grill and baggy clothing. He donned brown face makeup to complete the look, to make his representation of the artist more authentic. Yet, I wonder what his brown (black) face intimates.

In a racially charged society, it is very difficult to dismiss race as a category for analysis of sameness and difference. I go to a seminary with a lot of white people. Blackness is often seen as an afterthought or as integral to dispelling white guilt of historical racism, classism and sexism, which are all invariably linked. Within a US context, categorical whiteness was created in opposition to and in power over blackness.

As such, seeing a colleague with brown (black)face makeup as a means to complete his voyeuristic journey into blackness, I was offended. I was offended because of his ahistorical analysis of how brown makeup on a white face functioned historically. I was even more offended by how I was dismissed, my words taken as illegitimate.

“I don’t have a racist bone in my body,” implies that racism is specifically something that is enacted on an individual level between two parties. This being the case, if one has no “racist bone” (though I’ve not met the person who claims to have one), then it follows that they could not possibly perform racist ideology. This assessment does not take into account the ways in which racism has functioned historically and institutionally.

“I asked my black friends...” demonstrates that those whom were offended, and there were at least 8 of us that I recall, were either 1) not black, 2) not his friends, 3) too sensitive or 4) some combination of the three. I replied that we are colleagues who have known each other for over a year and that I was offended. Should my offense be taken into account or categorically dismissed?

Blackface has historical roots that dismissed black bodies as demonic. Further, these black bodies should be both produced as caricatures and vilified through hyperbolic behaviors. Blackface was not utilized to demonstrate appreciation for blackness as a phenotype or as a cultural expression. Rather, it was utilized to dehumanize blacks. Claiming Lil John’s body utilizes a black body for hilarity and popularity within the Halloween context.

I was likewise disturbed by the non-black response both in the party and afterwards. Many quietly whispered to me that they agreed with my assessment, that I should say something; others emailed me to say that they wish they could have said or done more. I challenge the non-black allies to be more vigilant in their liberal positions. To affirm racial equality and justice via email and in safe spaces of classroom and in hallways is one thing; to affirm these qualities in the midst of adversity demonstrates dedication to a cause. I was let down by many of my non-black allies in the struggle for racial equality and justice. If they were offended, they lacked the ability to speak forth because either they didn’t want to upset the party (any further than I already had) or they didn’t necessarily think it was such a big deal. Paralysis is not an excuse and I don’t wish to make anyone comfortable or comforted.

Only when we can honestly and thoughtfully look at issues of power within the dynamics of race and literally speak truth to power in all situations will we be able to alleviate oppressive and institutional and individual racist ideology.

A Sincere Apology…..
Anonymous

Let me first again apologize to those I may have offended. For that was not what I wanted to do in the least bit. The thought of offending anyone quickly ended my night and caused a stressful weekend to follow. It was if I could not think of anything else. The worst part was thinking that I would be considered a racist. I believe that I, unknowingly, let down some of my African American peers and white peers and their views of who I am. This is in part my ignorance and in part of my experience.

I shared with some close African American friends my idea for the costume, and they loved it. But as we know some others did not. I guess I could give you the normal spill about how I have black friends, how my old room mate was black and all the things of that sort, but I believe that to be played out. So let me just say that my experience as a white male growing up with black children from the time I was in school and running about the community has led me to feel comfortable around African Americans. Maybe my experience has led me to feel too comfortable around people who are different from me, whether it is social class or skin color. All I can honestly say is that I felt comfortable because of my past experiences and relationships I have with my black friends back home and here at school.

Still I feel as if I have let you down and the community of African Americans as well as many of the white students at Candler, or at least some of them, for I do not want to speak for everyone at Candler. Please understand where I am coming from and how sorry I am for the uneasy feelings I have given you and the community. I would love your insight and help in making this right or at least in reconciling the situation.

CONCLUSION
By Wanda

In light of the recent incident, many of you might ask “what’s the big deal?” ( In my opinion the bigger issue should be that a person like Lil John even exists.. but that’s for another blog) “A white guy painted his face brown to imitate the famous rapper, Lil John. He didn’t mean anything by it, it was a classic case of ignorance.” I agree. But, the bigger issue is that this act of ignorance opened up a larger issue in regard to race relations on campus. As a seminary, we should reflect a community reconciled with God working together to overcome barriers; however, when blacks who have experienced a momentary case of amnesia about their history, or when non-blacks who were able to address a minor issue remained silent and even after the opportunity to admit guilt and move forward, it is apparent that we have a long way to go. The enemies of true race reconciliation are paternalism, avoidance, and the ever popular “color-blindness” which only perpetuates the race divide. Unfortunately Candler, like most seminaries, is representative of the church-at-large. And we all know that the most segregated communities in America are our local congregations.

Those of us who confess to be members of the beloved community at Candler, should take formal action against the state of our school. Leaders of Candler student organizations and government should mobilize their members to engage in healthy dialogue in an organized forum. We have to move beyond the ideology of the popular TV philosopher, Archie Bunker “ Keep the sames with the sames, and the differents with the differents” and build race relations the only real way… one person, one relationship over an extended period of time. And upon entering those collective, community conversations, for Pete’s sake, leave the diplomacy, political correctness at the door and openly discuss ways in which we can truly mend our humanness. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and reconcilation is a process that we all must be willing to endure. For many of us, seminary is not merely a career decision, it is a vocation and the onus is on us.

Your Life Depends On It!

Commentary by Wanda

“For the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line” is a famous line from one of the most prolific black sociologists of the 20th century, WEB Dubois. Dubois believed that the power to overcome the color-line could be attacked through political power (the right to vote), civil equality, and education–collectively. Dubois' message was to all African Americans but I want to specifically address those who claim a conservative Christian perspective. Elections are right around the corner and for the past several years, I have witnessed many African American Christians vote based purely on “traditional family values” and the protection of the family (anti-same sex unions). When these candidates and officials talk about protecting the family they are never referring to "Pookie" and "Nay Nay’s" family…trust me! For if they were, there would be a greater emphasis on increasing minimum wage, improving education, and attacking drugs and violence in our cities. Some of our esteemed African American religious leaders parade these conservative candidates in their pulpits, pose with them for photo opportunities, and affirm these candidates based merely on their opposition to abortion, same sex unions and homosexuality.

I believe that the black church should be the agent for social change. Instead of focusing solely on prosperity, personal pursuits, financial literacy, and materialism, the church should be the prophetic voice addressing all the issues that their parishioners battle week in and week out in their respective communities. Many pastors resist discussing politics from the pulpit for fear of offending their members. But how is it possible that the black church, with a conscience, can distance itself from social activism? Lack of quality education, access to healthcare, and insufficient social security benefits are issues that affect African Americans disproportionately, so how can we remain silent?

Years ago in Atlanta, black pastors would interview local political candidates and then provide recommendations to their congregations. This type of collective power brokering resulted in informed citizens and an active leadership. What type of power would the African American community yield if pastors would revisit this type of collective political power?

African Americans of the middle and lower classes can’t afford to vote merely on moral issues when their economic stability is being threatened. As many continue to base their political ballot on whether or not a candidate is a member of The First American Church of Whatever and is Pro-Life and anti-gay, the gap between the haves and have nots widens, more and more black children slip through the cracks and our grandparents continue to be unable to support themselves. I know there are a myriad of other issues that this country deals with outside of the oppression of blacks and poor (we are not only homophobic, but also xenophobic – border issues and immigration laws); we’ve created powerful enemies and stand in fear of an attack on our liberty and, with the heightened threat of North Korea, our very lives. When we are made to focus on hot topics like abortion and homosexuality, we can forget that many are underemployed, undereducated, and undervalued as citizens of this country.

Don’t forget to exercise your right to vote on November 7th. Get involved in a local organization that addresses issues that help to make your community better. Check the candidates voting history and the causes they support – don’t let Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, and Anti-Same Sex Unions be your guiding decision, find out how they stand on economic and social issues that impact your community- because your very life depends on it.

Response by Cantice

Now I see the light. I wondered why Wanda would want to partner with me (someone who disagrees with her on the most essential spiritual doctrines and political ideologies) on anything, let alone a blog. But now I’ve got it. She brings it all to bear in this week’s commentary; she wants to convince all five of my conservative black friends to vote for Democrats.

Even if she does, it won’t impact the November 7th election. I can’t believe she wastes a whole page talking about people who vote on the basis of abortion, and same-sex marriage. I’m the only person I know who switched parties because of the life issue. The other people who vote Republican were going to anyway. The problem is exactly the opposite of what Wanda bewails. “Our” people, people in general, don’t vote based on morality; they vote (and Wanda urges them to) based on economics, and a limited knowledge of economics at that.

Wanda’s says the black church isn’t political enough because they’re not holding forums and interviewing candidates. I think that educating members about “The Peace Plan” and the "five global giants" (something that my “black church” does) as defined by Rick Warren has the capacity to make a greater difference than interviews and forums for addressing politics in our country and the world.

Morality doesn’t stop at marriage, it reaches into the economy. Let’s talk about raising minimum wage (this would be more of a conversation if we owned more of the businesses that were forced to comply with this regulation); I don’t think that anybody is satisfied with minimum wage. We’re not supposed to be. The best way to overcome the dissatisfaction is to keep acquiring the skills to qualify for more highly paid positions. This isn’t elite thinking, this is common sense. When I made minimum wage during college work study, I wasn’t mad. But neither did I expect to continue making that wage after graduation. Lowering our expectations for workers doesn’t create a better economy or society. And believing that economic status blurs the line between moral and immoral is an ideology that I detest. The bible is explicit; it is worse to be immoral than poor. I know poverty intimately, but I refuse to return to immorality.

It is a dream of mine that one day we will have a party system that actually requires a moral person to make hard decisions around Election Day. We’re not there yet and Wanda’s commentary assures us that we aren’t even close. If those who cry out against suffocating economic pressures or concealed racism would add the atrocity of abortion or other moral topics to their list of oppressions, I guess I would respect them more. As I once told my mom, if I feel like my life as a black person is being threatened, then I have a voice and a vote and any other means necessary to fight back. The young humans that I switched parties to vote for don’t have that power.

Five Global Giants: http://www.thepeaceplan.com/

The Joy of Parenthood

Commentary by Cantice

This weekend a friend and I attended the Georgia Right to Life Annual Conference. It was my friend’s first conference (my second) and understandably, she had some preconceived notions about the people she would encounter. To her surprise, nobody wore a baseball cap with buttons shouting “abortionists deserve to die”-type slogans. My friend enjoyed Scott Klusendorf’s (the keynote speaker’s) address on how to engage the pro-choice other side in meaningful discussion.

Many of you might be wondering how I came to feel so comfortably a part of the pro-life movement. The short story is that while in college, more than a couple of my friends became pregnant by the spring of my freshman year. Prior to this time I was passively pro-choice, believing that abortion was wrong, but that a person should be able to choose. For all my religious jargon, I knew that I didn’t have the substance to endure the nine months of shame that pro-life single mothers bore, nor was I unselfish enough to allow motherhood to alter my plans for academic and professional greatness. Maybe that’s why, when I was promiscuous, I feared pregnancy worse than death. I thank God that before I ever had to make a personal decision for or against life, my heart was turned to sympathize with the unborn.

As college drew on, I became more than passively pro-life. I read “Jane Roe” Norma McCorvey’s book, Won by Love, and began researching abortion procedures. A friendly local organization sent me a video called “Silent Screams” and others that either showed aborted baby remains or ultrasound footage of abortions being performed. Through sonography, one of the films depicted a gestating baby trying to escape the suction apparatus that would annihilate its tiny body. Before viewing the films, I was pro-life for religious reasons. After the films, I realized that abortion could be opposed on the basis of human rights violations.

Add to this negative milieu the fact that Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was sacrilegious and a proponent of eugenics. (For those wondering, eugenics is the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those individuals with genetic characteristics judged desirable.) That said, it should not be surprising that Sanger and others marketed contraception to African Americans in a eugenic experimentation that “peacefully” related to the violent actions of Nazi Germany against Jewish and Polish populations in Europe. But I digress.

It is my belief that today and in the years to come, more people will need encouragement to choose parenthood. As a community, we are backward in our thinking when we shun pregnant singles but condone extra-marital sex. I worry that married couples who aspire to be wealthy, but not to be parents, do not fully embrace the vocation of marriage. I fear that a society that prefers abortion over birth has lost its fear of God and its hope in the future. No abuse that a child could suffer is more gruesome than death at the hand of its parents. But a society that expects nothing more than abortion from its citizens deserves the abortionist and the unregretful consenter as its neighbors.

Abortion Reality Link: www.abort73.com

Response to The Joy of Parenthood
By Wanda

I think almost every woman I know has had a pregnancy scare. I believe that abortion is immoral since it can only be performed during the 6th week of pregnancy which is 3 weeks after the heart has been beating and blood has been flowing through its veins. Calling abortion a right is a fallacy, however, I will not condemn anyone who has had an abortion or condone it. Each individual makes decisions in their lives that they have to answer to God for, whether good or bad. I do know that many women who have experienced it were never the same again.

Now, on to my disagreement with your position that parenthood is a vocation of marriage. Are you trapped in 1602? Do I need to call Marty McFly and Dr. Emmett Brown from ‘Back to the Future’ to bring you into the year 2006? Parenthood is wonderful; Marriage is wonderful; if it is for YOU. Neither marriage nor parenting is a commandment given by Christ, although somehow I am sure you and your cronies have figured out some way to state it is. There are couples who decide not to have children, delay having children, or can’t conceive a child naturally and that doesn’t mean that they are not fulfilling their marital vocation. How can we assume that pursuing wealth and not having children is not a couple’s vocation? Who is to say that they shouldn’t wait? Why is it selfish and less ethical to decide to not have children? Valuing life not only means protecting it through Pro Life, Gun Control, Crime Prevention advocacy but also allowing those with life the opportunity to live in the liberty of Christ.

The HHIC: The Head Hu(Man) in Charge

Commentary by Wanda

As a result of our recent postings, I have had the privilege of engaging in conversations with several of my male acquaintances about the meaning of manhood. My question to these self-assured individuals is “What does it mean to be a man in the 21st century?” Their understanding of manhood and how it functions in gender relations is intriguing. Many times my counterparts define manhood as God given responsibilities as leader, provider and protector of the family. But how do we see these roles being played out in our personal situations? Most of these men had working wives, typically she has more “Christian experience” than him, and they owned car theft and home security systems. There were also several generative themes that reoccurred: receiving respect, honor and support from their wife. When I reflect on this list of determining factors to affirming ones manhood, his needs didn’t seem any different from my needs as a woman. Overwhelmingly, these men defined manhood in terms of spiritual headship.

Understanding leadership as divine and orderly is a confusing theme to me. What is out of order, what is disorganized by virtue of the man not staking his claim as the leader of the family? In my opinion, full participation in the health of your family is not leadership it is assuming the responsibilities of your marriage vows and your parenting obligations. I acknowledge and celebrate the differences between male and female but those differences don’t determine “divine order” they demonstrate God’s unique creative abilities. However, we immediately resort to referring to biblical times to reaffirm the role of women – which is an enormous mishandling of history. First, male headship is not Judeo-Christian concepts; these ideologies can be seen in many socio-religious settings. Secondly, before the last 200+ years, women many times were illiterate, unless of the middle classes and nobility, and they did not possess rights to own land, right to vote and even power over their children, unless a widow, and even in those cases there were definite limitations. So manhood for those times could rationally be defined in terms of provider, leader, and protector. But how do you translate those societal norms into today?

Now, don’t misunderstand my diatribe against male headship, if you are a woman who agrees with male headship, more power to you! I know that many of us (women) feel that our natural inclination is to support and nurture others however that does not translate to the necessity of male headship. Although, I don’t agree with headship in any terms, I wanted to give you some food for thought:

If God, who could possibly be understood as female - since God creates, births, nurtures, loves all creation- wanted a head wouldn’t God have chosen the woman to be the HHIC? For the woman has the power of the womb and typically functions as the spiritual and moral agent through child rearing.

A Response to HHIC
by Cantice


Wanda is trying to have her cake and eat it too. She continues to attempt to incorporate the voices of men by speaking to them in person and through poetry, but she stops short of considering the validity of their desires to be given some controls and leadership in the family that are not accorded to women.

What Wanda and other women don’t admit is that in any institution, it is confusing for the subordinates and for the leadership to have no concept of there being a final authority. Perhaps this is the true reason for God assigning roles in the marriage relationship. The same hierarchy is demonstrated in the concept of the trinity as understood by orthodox Christianity. In the trinity doctrine, Jesus (God the son) is subordinate to God the father in the economy of redemption, even though the father and son are equal in being and attribute (Sproul 80).

Further, perhaps leading to Wanda’s confusion about leadership (“Understanding leadership as divine and orderly is a confusing theme for me.”) is Wanda’s unwillingness to recognize God the way Jesus described him. I think it would be confusing at best to understand God as female, mostly because Jesus (who knew God better than Wanda and I) understood him to be Father. The words Jesus uses for father are not gender neutral.

Lastly, Wanda says that “we” refer to biblical times to reaffirm the role of women. I’m not sure who “we” is, but I refer to the inspired manuscript, not biblical times to take my instructions on the roles of men and women in marriage and family. There is a big difference. Christian themes in the Bible, especially those for women, in the centuries immediately preceding and following the death of Christ were revolutionary (see MacArthur’s Twelve Extraordinary Women).

Having said all this, I’d like to bring this theme home in a literal way. The reason that I can embrace this male headship so whole-heartedly is because I have seen it in action in my husband. Few men embrace leadership the way Jesus demonstrated it—as a servant. My husband demonstrates servant leadership daily in our marriage and in his relationship with our children. His headship looks less “manly” than the men Wanda surveyed would expect. Few men have accurately grasped this concept of leadership, which is why few women are quick to comply. But, show me a man who is a servant leader, and I’ll show you a throng of women in line to follow him.

MacArthur, John. Twelve Extraordinary Women: How God Shaped Women of the Bible and What He Wants to Do with You. Nashville: Nelson (2005).

Sproul, R.C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith Wheaton, IL: Tyndale (1992).

Fight for Your Right!

Commentary by Cantice

I assure you that I am not trying to put the s-e-x word on this blog too frequently, but this week’s topic revisits that ancient love sport. While reviewing a reproductive rights organization’s website I came across this assertion:

“…SisterSong believes that sexual prohibitions are not only promoted by moral conservatives, but also by reproductive rights advocates who fail to promote a sex positive culture” (http://www.sistersong.net/2007_NationalConference/2007NC_index.html).

The group goes on to say, “We believe that sex for pro-creation or sexual pleasure is a human right, and we are striving to create a pro-sex space for the pro-choice movement.”

I’ll state the obvious: if the pro-choice movement doesn’t already consider itself to be a pro-sex culture, I’m afraid of what US society would be like if this group achieves its objective. That assertion aside, viewing these statements on the website made me wonder, when should rights be advocated and under what circumstances is sex a right? I assume that one must attend the SisterSong conference, Let’s Talk about Sex, to get the answer, or at least I hope these parameters will be discussed. Or maybe I’m missing the point entirely, maybe there are no qualifications for sex as a right; perhaps we come out of the womb with the right to engage in intercourse and all other forms of “sex.”

Prohibitions are sometimes good, I think. That I’m not supposed to drink and drive is a helpful one. I don’t feel like my right to drive is inhibited by that prohibition. There are other good prohibitions, but you get the point. Besides that, this group has distorted the “moral conservative” position on sex. It is not prohibited, it is protected by marriage.

They didn’t even say consented sex. Isn’t that problematic for people who are likely to rage in response to date and acquaintance rape statistics with the slogan, “No means no!”? I’m just thinking…isn’t sex pleasurable precisely because it is not commonplace? And don’t we value sex by establishing guidelines for it? I can hear the other side now calling me a capitalist. I won’t mind that as long as someone tells me how we value something by making it free. Love costs. Friendship costs. Freedom costs. Just ask anyone who’s fought for it.

So what’s the point of me bringing up the SisterSong position? It’s simple: pro-sex (unrestricted sex) + pro-choice = higher abortion rates, more incidents of schizophrenia in women, more breast cancer, higher rates of infertility in women, more STDs and STIs, increases in dysfunctional marriage and psychologically disturbed children. So, raise your hand if you're for it …against it?


A Response to Fight for Your Right!
By Wanda

I think I have talked about sex more this month than I have ever in my 33 years on this planet! One major reason could be that I am enrolled in a ‘Sexuality and the Bible’ seminar. Nevertheless, let’s talk about sex. Cantice, humans have never fully adhered to sexual prohibitions or parameters. Although, we love to think they did. Sex outside of marriage, prostitution, homosexuality, rape, infidelity, orgies, have existed since Hebrew Bible times--- and that was a long time ago.

Sex is a natural, healthy desire – just like eating. Which is why so many people struggle with the two. If you don’t have a desire for sex (unless you have a screaming infant or toddler) then you better run to the doctor- immediately, seriously, no I’m not kidding, get to the doctor- now! But those who ascribe to specific religious beliefs understand the boundaries as positive and not an infringement on human rights. And that is it. How can you have a productive discussion about this? It’s a waste of time(Remember Ms. Founder*).

But my concern for every one of us who believe it is our life’s mission to tell everyone else what we think, why we think it, and why they should think like us, is that we use more wisdom in engaging those different from us in meaningful conversations. Moral conservatives should stray from jamming religious beliefs down people’s throats and Liberals should avoid dismissing religious convictions. If this could happen maybe we could spend more time on other important issues, like fighting for one’s right to affordable healthcare, greater employee and tax benefits for childcare and maternity leave. Now that sounds like something to fight for the right to party to..don’t you think?

Mad Love

Editorial Note and Poem
By Wanda

In place of a commentary, this week I decided to write a love poem about the men in my life. Although I like to write poems, I usually dont share them outside of my intended inspiration. But I have received several comments from individuals questioning my attitude towards men. So since I have not made my position perfectly clear in my commentaries I thought a creative work could shed some light on the subject. This is not my best poem, not even close, but it expresses my deepest sentiments for these indivduals. Please note: This will not be a regular occurence, I will return to my diatribes against sexism next week :-) - Sincerely Wanda

To The Men I Love(d)

To the men I love(d)
How divine you are
For you are made in His image
And our love confirms the enormity of His love

The very essence of a man sends me on a spiritual high
His walk, his presence and the very sound of his voice
The men I love(d) have made me come alive
Pull me out of the mundane, routine, rhythmic pace of life
And placed me into a transcendent space of where the divine only exists

To my Daddy,
You shaped my view on life and my faith
I’m your baby girl, the apple of your eye
And although you’re gone
I sometimes feel your presence
And the comfort of your unfailing love

For DJ, we were young and in love
We gave our hearts for what we thought would be forever
Or at least as much as forever could be at age 21
Although it didn’t last it was true love
Or the purest love of all….. Young love

To Eug-IV and BDH,
You are my friend, my companion, my confidant
It’s your perspective that brings balance to my Female world
It grounds me in what’s real
You have gone into the deep waters with me
Although we don’t always see eye to eye
Your love, friendship and compassion has kept me afloat

And finally to my dearest of kin, my blood, my co-conspirator in this world
My brother,
Myron your name means a fragrant balm, a sweet oil
And that you have been to me… healing, protection and comfort
As your little sishta
You scared away the boogie monster
And enacted lively bedtime stories until I fell asleep
As your grown sister
I find safety and security within your presence, your voice
And your beautiful letters of love
That always seem to appear in my mailbox at the perfect time

We have an inextricable bond
We share in all things
Disappointments and Triumphs
Your pain …is my pain
When you found love… I found love
Your happiness… is my happiness

Your undying love has motivated me to higher educational heights
My diploma is your diploma
Without your unfailing love and faith in me
The fulfillment of my goals would not be within my reach

To the men I love(d)
How divine you are
For you are made in His image
And our love confirms the enormity of His love


A Response to "Mad Love"
by Cantice

What to say? I didn't think Wanda needed to respond to the suggestions by some men that she was a bit of a man-basher. As men and women continue to read what Wanda writes, they will grow to know her more, just as I have. On the other hand, what Wanda was provoked to write reminds us of the integral roles men play in our lives: fathers, husbands, brothers, friends. It is always good for me to be reminded that we belong together. And even more important, that without the respectful interaction of the sexes, neither of us reaches his or her full potential. So in the immortal words of Claire Huxtable, Wanda, you have "let the record show..."

Select One: Sex or Sex

Commentary by Cantice

I direct a not-for-profit organization called Verge. Verge exists to strengthen commitments to abstinence, pursuit of purpose, desire for marriage and joy in parenthood in young adults (especially college students and alumni) age 17-30. As part of my role, I write grant proposals. One of the proposals I wrote was addressed to a local Memorial Foundation. When I searched for potential funders, I limited my criteria to foundations that support women’s organization or women’s issues, family planning, higher education, or Christian agencies. The local Memorial Foundation fit the criteria.

Friday I received a phone call from the founding member of the foundation responding to my request for support. Ms. Founder* informed me that the foundation would not support Verge because “abstinence is unrealistic.” In short, Ms. Founder is an avid supporter of Planned Parenthood and believes that contraceptive practices constitute a more realistic approach to planning parenthood than abstinence. Ms. Founder is 60 (she offered me this information) and has no children.

I was taken back by Ms. Founder’s response. That she didn’t give us a donation was disappointing, but not as disappointing as her disinterest in hearing that college-age women recommit to abstinence for a myriad of reasons, health-related, religious, and otherwise; that abstinence as a trend is rising; that I’m living proof that post-virginity abstinence can work; and that despite its unpopularity, sexual abstinence is the better choice for a woman emotionally, financially, medically, and spiritually.

I don’t want to go on about how Ms. Founder’s phone call made me feel. I want to know why she and women like her won’t set higher standards of sexual ethics for young women, and women in general. She can’t blame it on religion, because every major religion from Christianity to Islam—even Buddhism esteems sex as that which is best experienced between husband and wife. Is guilt the culprit? Are skeletons and memories preventing Ms. Founder from challenging women to expect more of themselves and their love interests? What kind of society is one which promotes the deception that sex is “free”? What effect does that ideology have on adolescents, marriage, men and women?

I suggest that women like Ms. Founder reconcile their past relational and sexual mistakes so that they may convey an honest message to the younger women who will look to them for guidance on issues of love and sex.

*Fictitious name due to sensitivity of the topic

Response by Wanda

Cantice, you know that I believe in what you are doing at Verge. Unfortunately, shortsighted individuals like Ms. Founder are unable to see the rewards of this lifestyle choice. And I emphasize choice. Sexual education was designed to not only inform young men and women about their bodies but also to provide choices….So isn’t abstinence a choice? There are a lot of people who claim to adhere to an open perspective on sex education until you mention abstinence, particularly if it is for religious reasons.

Abstinence is difficult, rather, it is extremely difficult, especially if you enjoy sex. But no matter how difficult it is, I believe it is the best choice for men and women (particularly for those of the Christian faith). I can quote a ton of scriptures that substantiate the sacredness of the body but even further sex, from my experience, clouds your judgment, causes you to hold onto a dead relationship longer than you should, and leaves you susceptible to unhealthy emotional ties. I made a vow of celibacy, not in the monastic way, but until I get married. I made this commitment several years ago (or at least it feels like it) – probably more like 4 years ago, and it hasn’t been easy. Unfortunately I haven’t always maintained it, but I realize that my frailties do not make celibacy flawed. It is a standard (according to my understanding of the Bible) not an exception, so I must meet the standards of my Faith.

The biggest debate against celibacy is that it isn’t natural, and for those who do not ascribe to certain religious beliefs it isn’t; but neither is an STD or AIDS. (I know that some have contracted these diseases from their spouse but that is another topic for another discussion.) Although there have been days when I feel as if I am hanging on to my celibacy commitment by a string - because celibacy at 33 is more challenging than celibacy at 25- I then realize that the benefits will be well worth it. So when I meet my partner for life, with clear minds, we can make that lifelong decision based on a realized compatibility and not just on physical attraction. Although, I plan to marry a hottie!

Bacon!! (...and eggs)

Commentary by Wanda
Unless you have been living under a rock for the last 20 years you have witnessed or experienced the backlash that has taken place against career mothers. A recent study published in The Journal of Social Forces entitled “What’s Love Got to Do With It? Equality, Equity, Commitment and Women’s Marital Quality” found that that women and men are happier in marriages with more traditional elements compared to egalitarian marriages (each party contributes to the finances, housekeeping and childcare). Before you respond with a hearty “amen” or a somber “whatever”, please note that the research was led by Professor W. Bradford Wilcox from the University of Virginia a proud and open supporter of traditional marriages (don’t always believe what you read). And just recently in the August 22, 2006 issue of Forbes Magazine, Michael Noer an editor, wrote the article “Don’t Marry Career Women” warning men not to marry career women because “they are more likely to divorce, more likely to cheat and less likely to have children…. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is, the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you.” (Mr. Noer, is citing not only the study mentioned above but also studies from the Institute for Social Research, American Journal of Sociology and The Journal of Marriage and Family.)

Although I am always skeptical of research, because you always have to ask so many critical questions of not only the subjects chosen, the way in which data is rated, and the background of the researchers, for argument sake I will consider the Wilcox study reputable. With this being the case then I will conclude that women are receiving more support because their husband is more comfortable and values the role that she embodies in their marriage. However, is that an adequate reason to promote traditional marriages for all those seeking marital bliss? Or should we help men understand the benefits and value of a marriage that supports his wife’s needs and also makes him happy? Maybe it’s not that career women are harder to please possibly men are not yet comfortable with the shift of roles although they wouldn’t outright say they want their wife in a more traditional role or at least not the breadwinner and demanding equal division of household responsibilities.

The feminist movement did fabulous things for women but one huge failure was that it didn’t “convert” enough men. It appears that certain individuals want women to return to days of making the man the King of his castle -at her expense- appeasing his every whim, not ruffling any feathers, dropping the kids off at school, working 8 hour days, picking up the kids from school, cleaning the house, cooking dinner, cleaning up dishes, helping with homework, vacuuming, and doing laundry. Although, observing “Super Moms” in action can be empowering, in many ways it’s depressing. Why should a woman with a partner carry such a burden alone? However, I am full of hope and believe that although second wave feminism took place over 40 years ago, it has only been 40 years. Change takes time. Most modern women are aware that the struggles we face for equality will not be handed to us on a silver platter we will have to continue to speak out and engage more men in the discussion and not get discouraged by slanted studies or small minds. One day women will cease singing the old 1970’s Enjoli perfume ad “I bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan and I’ll never let you forgot you’re a man, cause I’m a woman…Enjoli” and write new songs of their lives that encourage true equality and support for the family as a whole not at the expense of her own sanity.

The data for this study was collected from the National Survey of Families and Households (NSGH) and surveyed 5,010 couples. Link to Study “What’s Love Got to Do With It? Equality, Equity, Commitment and Women’s Marital Quality” www.virginia.edu/sociology/peopleofsociology/wilcoxpapers/Wilcox/Nock marriage.pdf

A Response to Bacon!! (and eggs)
By Cantice

I didn’t read Professor Wilcox’s study, but I will. I have, however, read a similar study in the American Journal of Family Therapy (by Bean et al. 33.4 (2005): 319-336 ) which corroborates the professor’s findings.

I’m less interested in agreeing with his findings or refuting Wanda’s rant than I am in considering why his findings so upset Wanda and perhaps others. If it is true that a majority of men and women are happier when they are in a traditional marriage (where the man is the primary breadwinner and the woman is the primary house-and children-keeper) why is it stomach-turning? I think any researcher would be hard-pressed to find a woman who is not happier if her husband is able to support her and his family without her working. Do I have any honest women out there? How would that make you feel? How much would that change your life? Would it relieve any of your stress?

At the same time, staying home with babies and/or preschoolers with no help is harder than working an eight-hour shift, partly because society has changed. The at-home-networks (at-home grandparents, older women in the neighborhood, other at-home-mothers, teenage female relatives), are sparser today than they were 50 years ago. Feminism’s answer to the weight of at-home work was to make the man do half of the domestic work (though it didn’t relieve his work schedule outside of the home). Since the 70’s wives have consistently increased in number as workers outside of the home. But, Fox-Genovese notes in Women and the Future of Family, that there was no increase in men at home, so the ones who lose (and have been losing consistently since the Women’s Revolution) are children: aborted and abandoned.

As someone said in an earlier comment, staying home isn’t the issue. The issue is value. If I don’t value being at home, but I am there, I am a peon in my own eyes. But the issue is also economic. If I am at home and I literally don’t have the means to go anywhere or do anything, then home is a prison. Could the issue also be wealth envy? Do any feelings of envy or jealousy pop-up if I find out that some families have the means to allow the wife to be at home, have help for the house and/or children and still have a life?

Instead of calling each other names, I wish we would deal with the real issues that are the fallout of our value shifts: unhappy women, perverted men, broken homes, and dysfunctional children. Women, especially married ones and mothers, will play multiple roles in their lives at home and in the marketplace. If you’re like me, you could stand to play your part with a little more grace.

If Plan A Doesn't Work Try Plan B

Commentary by Cantice

Let’s not let the FDA’s approval of the over the counter “morning after” pill go undiscussed. We begin with the facts. The morning after pill or Plan B as the FDA calls it, is a progestin-only double-dose of a typical birth control pill that may work in any of several ways. Its mechanism is explained in plain terms by Jennell Paris in Birth Control for Christians. If taken before ovulation, the pills interrupt the maturation of the developing egg, preventing or delaying ovulation. If taken after ovulation the pill may immobilize sperm in thickened cervical fluid, slow the movement of the egg through the fallopian tube, or prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (Paris 160). The drug’s OTC approval came after 60 agencies in 2001 petitioned the federal government to make the drug available over-the-counter (womenshealth.gov August 2006). Responding to the petition, the government called for more testing that when completed in 2003 named the drug safe and effective. The pill had been made available through prescription since 1999.

I am hardly surprised that the pill has made its way to OTC status. The government did its due diligence by raising the age of purchaser to 18 (the drug company proposed offering the drug to those age 16 and older). The FDA also added the restriction that the drug be administered by a licensed pharmacist. The pro-life community, within which I align myself, did its part to inform people of the ways that the pill may work to abort by preventing a zygote (a sperm-fertilized egg) from implanting.

These days, we can’t rely on institutions to make decisions that display the highest sense of morality, because morality must align itself with deity, and in this country we are unwilling as a society to do that. This event of Plan B being made available over the counter presents us an opportunity to rethink or establish for the first time our personal morality when it comes to contraception or family planning. Let me offer this warning to the single people reading, contraception is like sex, if you don’t conquer it before you marry, it creeps back up to haunt you after marriage.

As a society, we will continue to use technologies to take up the slack for what we are failing to do by our own wills. What I wish is that the public and private sectors would spend half as much time and money dealing with real issues, in this case our unbridled sexual urges and unmet relational needs. If we use technologies it should be within a temporary plan to strengthen ourselves and should one day be phased out or restricted in some cases. The gentlest advice I can give the reader is to first deal with the real issues as they are defined in your life. By what authority do you allow yourself to overstep restrictions on sex before marriage that are found in all three of the major world religions and all but a couple of smaller ones? When it comes to contraception, allow yourself to do serious research and give yourself time to digest and respond spiritually to the information you find. And if you are a Christian, you should care about precedents and scriptures in the Bible responding to issues of family planning or contraception. If you need to be guided in your search, send me an email. I live for this.

A RESPONSE TO PLAN B
By Wanda

I knew this was coming….Honestly, Cantice I don’t have a problem with the morning after pill being available to women over 18 years old. Unlike many others, I do not see it as an abortion pill, from my research I understand it to be an emergency form of birth control. I prefer not to delve into the science of the pill, because your explanation above gives a good description of its functionality. I believe the FDA will ultimately display a high level of responsibility when it comes to the distribution of the pill.

However, Christians should realize (although I consider myself a Christian) that most people are not interested in sexual purity, so why get involved in this conversation? I am not condoning reckless, careless, sexual practices by single or married people. And I believe that as a Christian your body is sacred and should not be abused through spiritual, sexual, or any other type of physical carelessness. But things do happen - even to the best of Christians. Being a mature Christian or a personal of high moral values never equates to sainthood.

Additionally, birth control in the general sense is a matter of personal conviction. I cringe at the notion that there are “biblical scholars” who would attempt to build a sound biblical/historical case against contraception. At best you build a limited opinion and mask it as sound biblical interpretation. As a biblical scholar in the making, I understand that scripture must provide practical life application even in the light of antiquated traditions and social settings. Nevertheless, we should never place scripture at the mercy of our own personal convictions.

I feel wholeheartedly that birth rates should be controlled. You and I live in the overpopulated Atlanta, Georgia just think if no one used contraception or only practiced the very tedious natural birth control methods- we would have to leave home 3 hours early just to travel 10 miles to work. But maybe that would encourage more space exploration? Who knows you Right to Lifers may be on to something.

Skinny Jeans and Pumps

Commentary by Wanda

I don't consider myself a Fashionista but I like to have at least one or two items du jour each style season and I try to avoid all fashion faux pas, i.e. wearing white after Labor Day. This fall season the hottest trend is skinny jeans with pumps. My "liberated" mind can't help but deconstruct these fashion trends that have taken place over recent years - capri pants, full-skirted dresses, and now skinny jeans. Is there some subverted message being delivered by the industry- a return to days when women dressed like ladies, neatly put together, the Mrs. Cleaver prototype?

Any card carrying member of the Religious Right would say that those were the good ole days and eagerly spout propaganda how the world is in worse shape because mothers are not at home and supervising their children. The Religious Right states claims that children with at-home moms are far more well-adjusted than children with working mothers and they eventually become successful adults (this has been disproved - read the book Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner). Nostalgia is not an uncommon occurrence. At any moment,you can be overcome with nostalgia. For example, just last night I tried to squeeze into a pair of jeans I wore in 12th grade and dance to a Guy CD. But trust me when I left out the house last night I didn't wear those jeans. Sometimes its a good idea to hold onto some traditions, but determining what to let go of can be a slippery slope, especially for extremists. It appears that the fashion industry has picked up on what is happening within the debate on women's role in the public and private domains and built the latest styles on that discourse.

This autumn I will stroll (sometimes I've been known to strut) across campus alongside true Fashionistas who will model the latest styles in classrooms, the student union, and frat house parties. These young ladies won't give a second thought to the social implications of their wardrobe. Their outfits reflect a time for women when non-existent professional advancement, political and religious silence were the norm and they support on some subliminal level, an agenda to return women, to some degree, to those days. What's next? Will next year's Fall line include an apron, or acorseted underwear to be worn under all dresses, or maybe the industry might eliminate pants altogether and return all proper ladies to the Victorian era. I have to be honest, you will probably catch me in a pair of skinny jeans and pumps but I will wear them with great apprehension knowing that as 21st century woman and occasionally a slave to fashion, I am possibly one style season away from returning to an apron styled with a frying pan.

A Response to Skinny Jeans and Pumps
By Cantice

Wanda, Jesus Christ himself couldn't get you in an apron. And what would be the use, you said yourself you don't cook. What you do, you do well and you have impressively deconstructed another trend, a fashion trend in fact. For better or worse, I am that woman who you probably feel uncomfortable walking with, since I hardly keep up with styles and regularly commit my share of faux pas. Just yesterday I wore flip-flops to work. But while your analysis was on point, many of your subsequent inferences were off. I won't pick your conjectures apart one by one, but I will comment on a few of your notes of caution (namely your at-home-mom/traditional mom phobia) and add some opinions of my own.

To believe that a return to the fashion of the fifties means that a higher power or industry wants women to return to the roles and values they had in the 1950s is short-sighted, especially if the higher power is male. What man wants women to return to the days of no sex before marriage and separate sleeping quarters afterward? I haven't read Freakonomics but I bet I could guess what well adjusted and success mean to the writers. I don't believe that the Religious Right is as uncritical as you describe and I'm not just speaking for myself. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, PhD, a pioneer in feminism, lost friends when she, a Catholic, called for a return to a parent in the home. Her recommendation found in Women and the Future of Family was less a diatribe against the "New Woman" and more of a call for somebody, namely a parent, to begin to care about the well being of children. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is commonly believed to be the definition of insanity, so she calls for a radical shift, a return of the at-home-parent. In her estimation women tend to do the best job of caring for kids. The other evangelicals who respond in the book agree that kids need more care, their parents are the prime candidates to give it, and that the government could make it a little easier economically for them to do so.

Lastly, I don't believe that the Religious Right wants a flat-out return to the homemaker. After all, married folks are the ones who benefit from both parents working. What feminists on the left and the right are beginning to agree on is that individualism is breaking down at least the US American society. But, the idea that somebody (read woman) owes loyalty to someone (read children, family, men) is shocking to some (read "New Women").

So by all means, Wanda, wear your skinny jeans. I don't think you have to worry that subconscious thoughts of learning to cook will infiltrate your brain. And I don't think that those young co-eds with those full-skirted dresses are any less likely to raise them for their less than knights-in-shining-armor at the end of a first date.

About Cantice and Wanda

About Cantice:

A happily married woman and mother of preschoolers, Cantice divides her time between caring for her family and teaching English part-time. Considering that motherhood must be taught and learned today as opposed to being gleaned from family practices as in times past, she reaches out to other mothers both as a mentor and apprentice through work at pregnancy care centers and in small group meetings with mature mothers. She has studied women’s issues and movements since attending Spelman College in the mid to late nineties and recently returned to Spelman as a part-time faculty member teaching in the English Department.

Cantice grew up in Phoenix, Arizona with three siblings and a loving family. Though her parents divorced when she was six, she continued to enjoy stability at home with her mother and contact with her father as often as possible. She recognizes her mother and father’s intellect, her mother’s work ethic and responsibility and her aunt’s faith as cornerstones of her spiritual and material success in life.

Experiments at Spelman with feminist and womanist activities and philosophies, African-spiritist religions, paganism, and pluralism give her a rich testimony from which to pull as she joyfully defends traditional/orthodox Christianity today. She enjoys encouraging women to live their best lives.

About Wanda:

The daughter of a Baptist pastor, at the age of 17 Wanda embarked on an intense exegetical study of the New Testament focused on disproving that women could be called to preach. After a few months of study she realized that not only could women preach but they could also take leadership roles in the church and beyond. Although she was the daughter of devout Christian parents, Wanda was allowed to experience life as a typical teenager; attending school dances, plastering posters of Prince and Michael Jackson on her bedroom walls, wearing the latest fashions and even training as a ballet dancer. Her parents’ Godly wisdom on raising children allowed her the opportunity to discover Christ for herself at the age of 17.

During her second semester in college she enrolled in a course entitled ‘Jesus and the Gospels’ and after her first class she changed her major from Urban Studies to Religion and decided that she would ultimately become a religion professor. Wanda went on to complete her Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies with a concentration in Early Christianity in 1999. Professionally, Wanda has over 10 years in the non-profit sector including experience in fundraising, development, and marketing. Although labeled by others as a feminist or a womanist she considers herself a Christian who is searching for truth and not afraid to ask the tough questions to find it.

Wanda is a native of Cleveland, Ohio and the youngest of a blended family. She is a proud graduate of The Cleveland School of the Performing Arts and alumni of Cleveland State University. Her favorite pastimes are watching reality TV, reading, dancing and laughing. Currently, Wanda is a Masters of Theological Studies student at Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.