The Big Adventure Part 2.1

For those of you who started to read this already, my apologies, but it appears that xanga does not have enough bandwidth to support the 4 slide shows I had on this post so I have to break it up into two posts.

Nite 1: I caught the sunset on my camera…finally. So in the next set of slides you’ll see that first. Then lil man and I turned in after a few hours. We had a perfect view of the moon through our tent ceiling…so I tried to snap it…of course, small digital camera versus millions of miles to the moon doesn’t really fare well.

So lil man and I are horsing around in the tent, and of course, I have to annoy him, so I just start taking shots in the dark…I caught quite a few interesting sections before I actually got all of him in the camera’s eye.

Day 2: I woke up crazy early, because as I think I mentioned previously, the stupid mattress from KMART was no good, and would not hold air. So sleep was disturbingly uncomfortable, considering (as I later discovered) we were on a rock slab with stickle burs and various wooden stickles (my word for the strange sharp wooden pieces that looked like stickle burs but were 3 times the size). I think I could take no more by about 3am.

So I got up and decided that this was the opportune time to utilize the one person bathroom they had for all adults and females of any age. Mind you, the boy’s bathroom was quite large and had 4 shower stalls, but the adults and all other children were to use this one person bathroom.

Needless to say, the women with small children were ready to stage a revolt because you could be standing in line all day just to pee. The general consensus reached was utilizing the boy’s restroom if no one was using it, and with a guard by the door as a preventative. I would have used it regardless, if I needed to. It did have a lock on the door.

But imagine my surprise when I discovered that there was a line for the bathroom at 3am in the morning, albeit, a small line…just two of us, but a line nevertheless. And the dorky dude that was using it wasn’t even from the scouts. There was a family or two camped on the other side of the bathrooms. This guy was in there for, I don’t know…two hours…just singin’ in the rain. He was completely oblivious to the fact that there were people waiting, until I finally knocked on the door.

So I got me an early shower, beating the crowds, and was sittin’ in the dining area by about 5am, just chillin’ and waitin’ for the scout leader to show up to start breakfast.

Note: I’m having to edit this post, because I see that all the pics on my slide show is not coming through. Bear with me ; part 2.2 later. Thanks.

I thought you all would like to check this site out. I think this is an idea long overdue, and worth supporting. Most people who claim to be Christians are not supporting this group, but I think that this group and ministry is very necessary, because the industry they pursue has yet to be reached for the Kingdom, and there are many lost and hurting souls there as well. Check out this blog post on the site. I thought it was an excellent read. I will be back next week with the continuing story on the Big Camping Adventure. Peace and blessings.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & the Female Controversy 7

Unequal in the Assembly

Paul’s authentic letters were written to communities and not to individuals, with the exception of Philemon. The letters to Timothy and Titus are three inauthentic post-Pauline letters to individuals, to Timothy, imagined as left by Paul in charge of Crete. There is, by the way, not the slightest hint in his authentic seven letters that Paul ever left anyone in charge of the communities he founded – that is why he always writes to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, Romans, but never to a presiding elder or overseer as representative of the community.

The subject of female leadership within the Christian assembly arises in the post-Pauline 1 Timothy, but also as an intersection within the Pauline 1 Corinthians.

1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

 1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

 1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

 1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

 1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

In this text female leadership is absolutely forbidden by this psuedo-Pauline author. Women are not allowed to teach or instruct men. Women are to remain silent.

Clearly of course, psuedo-Paul would not bother to forbid what never happened. That prohibition therefore, tells us that women were praying and teaching within the community’s catechetical practise and lithurgical worship. But this text dismisses women from those functions and relegates them to home, silence, and childbearing. Augustus, you will recall, would have been particularly pleased with those injunctions.

1Cr 14:33b but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

 1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

 1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

The problem here is not with an inauthentic Pauline letter like 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus, but with an insertion from that later tradition into an original earlier authentic letter of Paul. In the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible this unit appears in parentheses. Those parentheses emphasize manuscript problems in the earliest textual transmission.

First the passage is not at its present location but at the end of the chapter in some manuscripts. Second, those verses are given as a separate paragraph in all Greek manuscripts. Third, that section was deemed problematic very early, and this is the most important argument for its later insertion into Paul’s original text.

Bear in mind, the above is a continuation from the  same book I’ve been posting from in the previous posts on this. Please don’t respond under the delusion that I am claiming that anything in the bible is inauthentic. I’m merely exposing you to what this biblical scholar had to say about this, and you can draw your own conclusions.

On another note, the continuation of “The Big Camping Adventure ” is forthcoming, but I need time to upload all of those pics and make some slide shows. Have a blessed weekend.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & the Female Controversy 6

From “In Search of Paul,” by Gary Wills:

It always puzzled people that Paul could send greetings to so many people with whom he had ties in a city he had not seen yet himself – all named in the conclusion to his letter.

These are not casual acquaintances. This is a crack team, in the best possible muster of Paul’s operatives who are free and able to join him when he gets to Rome. This assembly is not a chance gathering. Paul’s plan is to take the gospel to Spain.

Rom 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:

 Rom 15:21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

 Rom 15:22 For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you.

 Rom 15:23  But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you;

 Rom 15:24 Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your [company].

He circulated copies of his letter in Rome and Jerusalem to gain support for this worldwide outreach and Phoebe, Prisca and her husband along with the assembled team, were instrumental in this campaign – which was tragically cut short by the dark outcome of his eastward trip.

From this point on, the information is coming strictly from the book “In Search of Paul.”

Unequal in the Family

After those three authentic Pauline texts establishing female and male equality within Christianity in family, assembly, and apostolate, we turn to three inauthentic post-Pauline ones moving in exactly the opposite direction.

Greco-Roman moral though developed codes for the ethical running of households, which were then as now, the heart of society’s health. Those household codes concerned the proper moral relationship between all members of the extended family, husbands and wives, parents and children, slaves and masters.

We look now at two post-Pauline examples of such moral instructions, first in Colossians 3:18-4:1 and then in Eph 5:22-6:9, the latter development of the former commandments.

 Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

 Col 3:19 Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.

 Col 3:20 Children, obey [your] parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Col 3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children [to anger], lest they be discouraged.

 Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things [your] masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

 Col 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do [it] heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;

 Col 3:24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

 Col 3:25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

 Col 4:1 Masters, give unto [your] servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Eph 5:22  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

 Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

 Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

 Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

 Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

 Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

 Eph 5:33  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

  Eph 6:1  Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

 Eph 6:2  Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)

 Eph 6:3  That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

 Eph 6:4  And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

 Eph 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

 Eph 6:6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

 Eph 6:7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

 Eph 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether [he be] bond or free.

 Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

Notice that there is a hierarchy both vertically ( spouses, parents, owners) and horizontally (husband/wife, parent/child, owner/slave) in these lists. Despite the clear lack of equality between wives and husbands, it seems easier to be a wife “subject” to a husband like church to Christ than a husband “loving” a wife like Christ to church. Self-sacrifice, be it noted, is demanded of husband, not the wife. It is surely terribly and sadly ironic that Christian tradition demanded subjection from wives and then, rather than demanding self-sacrifice from husbands, transferred that to wives as well. Then they speak about the children and parents – the slaves and owners.

What is most striking about those texts, however, is that if you bracket their explicit Christian motivation, they emphasize general family values that would be quite acceptable across contemporary Roman social theory and practice. Augustus, were he still alive, would have been extremely pleased.

It seems most likely, therefore, that their purpose was to insist that Christian families were not at all socially subversive, but were as good as if not better than, the best of those around them. For our present argument, these texts represent a first step in collating Christian and Roman household ethics.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & the Female Controversy 5

Again, I continue in the information I found in the previously mentioned book, “In Search of Paul.”

Equal and More in the Apostolate.

Paul’s letter to the Romans concludes in 16:1-15 with mention of 29 named individuals.

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

 Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

 Rom 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

 Rom 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

 Rom 16:5 Likewise [greet] the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

 Rom 16:6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.

 Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

 Rom 16:8 Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.

 Rom 16:9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.

 Rom 16:10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus’ [household].

 Rom 16:11  Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the [household] of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.

 Rom 16:12  Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.

 Rom 16:13  Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

 Rom 16:14  Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.

 Rom 16:15  Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

Of those persons, two are pagan house-holders, some of whose present or freed slaves are Christians and greeted as “those in the Lord who belong to the family” of Aristobulus and Narcissus (16:10-11).

That leaves twenty seven named Christians. In what follows, watch the statistics, the details, and the names, especially which names are female and which are male.

First and above all, it is a woman who carries Paul’s letter from Corinth’s eastern port to the Christian groups in Rome – Phoebe (16:1-2).

According to Gary Wills in “What Paul Meant,” Cenchraeae is the port of Corinth, so Phoebe had stood with Paul in his very troubled dealings with the busy port city, where she was clearly efficient (as diakonos) and able to champion Paul and “many” (as prostates) indicates that she would not be leaving that sphere unless she could perform important services in Rome. Was she going there on some errand of her own and Paul just used this chance occurrence to send his letter along with her? It doesn’t fit in with the convergence of so many other important associates of Paul’s in Rome.

(Back to the book “In Search of Paul) Recall by the way that Jael, the leading and only female God-fearer in the Aprodisias inscription in Chpt 1, was also called a protector, patron, or benefactor (prostates). (The Aprodisias inscription refers to archeological inscriptions that were found. Paul Trebilco concluded in his book “Jewish Communities in Asia Minor,” that Jael was “a prominent leader of the Jewish community and represented their interests to the wider society or the president or leader who directed community affairs.”) A Pauline letter carrier would also have to circulate, read, and explain it among the Christian communities at Rome.

Second, two presumably married couples are singled out for rather extraordinary praise. Priscilla is mentioned first.

Rom 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

Rom 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Third, in the total of twenty-seven individual Christians in the above list, ten are women (Phoebe, Priscilla, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, and an unnamed mother, Julia, and an unnamed sister) and the other seventeen are men (Aquila, Epaenetus, Andronicus, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Herodion, Rufus, Asyneritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hemas, Philologus, Nereus, and Olympas).

Fourth, it may be unfair to assess which gender gets the highest praise among those accolades or epithets, but one point should be noted. Paul’s Greek root special apostolic activity is Kopiano, meaning “worked hard.” He uses it for himself twice, Gal 4:11 and 1 Cor 15:10, but four times in Romans and exclusively for women, for Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis.

Fifth, in one way or another, everyone Paul knows personally gets some sort of comment. Herodion, for example is “my kinsman” (re: fellow Jew). But it is interesting to compare in terms of gender the first 17 individuals known to Paul by personal contact with the last ten known only by hearsay report. Of the ten people indirectly known to Paul, only two are women and eight are men, but of the 17 directly known, 9 are men and 8 are women. In other words, those known to Paul by direct contact are about evenly divided between men and women.

The Big Adventure Part 1

I’m back with adventures and pics! I know yall didn’t believe I’d ever get to it, but here they are. This was from the first day of the trip camping down in the Keys. It was a perfect day and a perfect drive getting down there. We left early so there was no traffic encounters in the 2-3 bottlenecks in Kendall. We just breezed through.

” This was the view of a small island from one of many long bridges over the water.

We were the third arrival from our group at the site. I wanted a certain spot by a cluster of trees for our tent, but unfortunately, there was another group in the camp site using that area, and we were limited to certain sections. I did manage to get us a spot with some measure of shade, depending on the time of the day.

We were blessed with tent, because a friend of mine gave it to me two years ago. We have out little porch area in the front with deck chairs, and my table to the side of it. See those trees in the background with the hammock? That’s the spot I wanted, but this spot wasn’t too bad.

I went to the flea market with my cousin Friday and Saturday of that week, and got blessed again, because I got a deal on a bigger tent. This tent is a 3 person tent. That’s if you have no floor space at all, and just have sleeping bags. The tent I got looked like it had been used once or twice.

It is an Ozark, which is a very good brand. It looks like 4 could sleep in it with just sleeping bags, and it came with 2 sleeping bags and a cooler bag. It was supposed to have a small light with it, but that was the only thing missing. We have lights anyways. It also came in a zippered canvas bag with handle. This entire ensemble cost me…$20.00. Steal of a deal.

Plus, I just bought us two single fold out beds from Walmart, because I’m so beyond tired of messing with air mattresses that leak. Once again, on this trip, we had a faulty air mattress. My friend Simone had given me a new mattress last year, after yet another mattress had gone bad. She had bought it at Kmart, and let me just say that I clearly understand why this chain is going out of business. They have cheap products and they don’t guarantee them. I’ve had 5 bad mattresses from them. No more.

The new mattress she gave me had a leak, which I don’t fault her for in any way. I got the receipt and took it back on the last camping trip. For those who recall…I drove miles and to two stores to get the replacement while we were on the trip.

At any rate, it was this replacement that I took home still boxed. I never opened the box until this trip to the Keys. What do I discover? The mattress has two big stains and a slit from a knife. They replaced the damaged mattress with another damaged mattress, and taped up the box. (I should have realized with the taped box, but by the time I finally got the stupid thing, I was just relieved – see the last camping adventure for why.)

At any rate, I was not a “happy camper” when I saw that. We attempted to patch the stupid thing to no avail; so basically, we slept on the hard floor that night, which wasn’t comfortable at all.

Here’s lil man gettin’ ready for action. This was prior to us finding out about the mattress.

I’m snappin’ away, and here, he’s trying to ignore me, because I’m teasing him to get a reaction so I can take the picture. And…

Here’s the reaction. Works like a charm. He says I’m annoying because of the manner in which I play and horse around with him, but I have to keep reminding him that being annoying is part of my job as a parent. I keep asking him why he wants to take the fun out of my job…and I have to remind him of previous periods of him being annoying to me even after being told; to which he states… “That was then. I’m different now.” He figures he’s more mature. So I tell him, “Yeah, so now it’s my turn.”

As you can see from the background of this pic, we are practically on the beach. After messing with the mattress without any real success, lil man heads to the pier to do some snorkling.

There are a lot of rocks here. It’s like a big shelf and you can jump off the pier into the water, but you need water shoes around this area, because the rocks are sharp.

That bridge is old and no longer used, but it is just before the Bahia Honda Beach and campground. That beach is really nice too. We went there last year, but didn’t get a chance to go this year. But in all of these water filled areas where the kids are standing, they find all kinds of active sea life.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & the Female Controversy 4

Again, I continue in the information I found in the previously mentioned book, “In Search of Paul.”

The basic Pauline principle of equality among Christians applies not just to slavery, but to patriarchy as well. In Paul’s theology, Christian gender inequality can no more exist than can Christian class inequality. Females and males are therefore equal in family, assembly, and apostolate within Christianity.

Equal in the Family

Paul received a set of questions from a divided assembly he founded in Corinth. They were inquiring whether complete sexual separation and total ascetic abstention were mandatory for Christians, and whether such celibate abstention was the normal form of Christian life. Was it not better, they asked, for a man not even to touch a woman?

In 1 Cor 7, Paul insists that marriage and intercourse are permissible, but still ascetic abstention is preferable.

1Cr 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

1Cr 7:17 …as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk.

Paul distinguishes permissible marriage (you could) from preferable celibacy (you should), but accepts the latter himself rather than holding both options as equally good, equally holy, equally possible Christian states of life. We emphasize that Paul’s preference is about celibacy over marriage and not about inequality over equality for both women and men within either status. There is a consistent equality of female with male or male with female throughout Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor 7.

It is so explicitly done, so clearly exaggerated, that it is obviously intentional. Whatever he says of one spouse, he then says of the other: the wife does this, the husband does the same; the husband does that, the wife does the same. Watch the persistence of this mutuality as equality over four subtopics: On intercourse (7:3-5), on divorce (7:10-16), on virginity (7:25-28), and on worries and anxieties (7:33-34).

There is, however, one section in 1 Cor that seems to silence women within the Christian assembly, which would certainly exalt men over women with regard to ecclesiastical status. That, of course, would be a strange dichotomy, given what Paul says in Gal 3:28, that there is neither male nor female in Christ.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

How therefore are we to understand 1 Cor 11:3-16?

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

 1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.

 1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

 1Cr 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

 1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

 1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

 1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

 1Cr 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.

 1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

 1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

 1Cr 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

 1Cr 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

 1Cr 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

 1Cr 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

If you focus only on the women, it is plausible to argue that Paul is subordinating them to men (based on scriptural text, social dress and church custom). On the other, if you focus only on the men and realize that Roman males normally covered their heads for worship, as with the statue of Augustus as a priest at sacrifice, it is plausible to argue that Paul is opposing pagan religious practice.

If however, you notice how the text oscillates between women and men, men and women, you would have to take both sexes into any correct explanation.

Paul takes it for granted that both women and men pray and prophesy in liturgical assembly. That is not the problem of the text. Its a problem of the proper head covering for each of them in that situation. But why was that so important an issue?

At Corinth, presumably as a defiant challenge to inequality and a dramatic statement of equality, men and women had reversed modes of head covering in prayer, so that men worshipped with covered heads and women with uncovered heads.

In other words, Paul was confronted with a negotiation not just of gender hierarchy, but of gender difference, and he stutters almost incoherently in trying to argue against it. Of course, women and men were equal “in the Lord” and “from God,” but there should be no denial of ordinary dress codes or standard head coverings.

The difference between women and men, however, that was customarily and socially signified, must be maintained, even while hierarchy or subordination was negated.

The passage in 1 Cor 11:3-16 is the best Paul can do on that subject. But the text is emphatically not about hierarchical inequality, but about differential equality. Paul presumes equality between women and men in the assembly, but absolutely demands that they follow the socially accepted dress codes of their time and place.

Difference, yes. Hierarchy, no. That interpretation of a very difficult passage is strongly confirmed by the next section for if women are silenced in the assembly, how can they be prominent in the apostolate?

I am reading “The Accidental Asian.” It is a very interesting and eye opening book about expectations and the differences between one’s culture of origin and what happens to people of a certain culture that gets assimilated into American culture.  There’s both a gain and a loss, real and perceived.

And in the course of discovering what people from the Asian culture may experience whether assimilated or not; was an acronym I had not been aware of-SNAFU. Now I don’t know if most people know what this acronym means, but it shocked me because I was looking at the name of my former dog…a name I lovingly gave him because I thought it was cute. And discovering this acronym of my baby’s name caused me some measure of mild annoyance and insult.

Another thing that was mentioned seems to me to be a standard truth, and was simple enough in its concept, but surprised me because it was not something I had ever consciously thought about. “‘A’ students end up working for ‘C’ students.” Unbelievable just how true that is! And then the ‘A’ students are angry and frustrated because some ‘idiot’ put a ‘moron’ in charge, who doesn’t know squat about the job, the process, nor safety.

I thought these were very astute thoughts and observations:

“The irony is that in working so duteously to defy stereotype, I became a slave to it. For to act self-consciously against Asian “tendencies” is not to break loose from the cage of myth and legend; it is to turn the very key that locks you inside. What spontaneity is there when the value of every act is measured, at least in part, by its power to refute a presumption about why you act?”

For me, this speaks of putting an end to the manipulations by others through their expressed expectations and the pressure of their guilt trips. I so understand this man’s struggle, despite the fact that he was not at all pressured by his family to go one way or the other. It was societal pressures that influenced much of his struggle, particularly as a young man. In his case, he was only dealing with an internal battle between his culture of origin, and the culture of the country he lives in.

“…For while it may be possible to transcend race, it is not always necessary to try. And while racial identity is sometimes a shackle, it is not only a shackle. I could have spared myself a great deal of heartache had I understood this earlier, that the choice of race is not simply “embrace or efface.”

…For here I am now, standing in a new country. Not as an expatriate or a resident alien, but as a citizen. And as I survey this realm-this Republic of Privilege-I realize certain things, things that my mother and father might also have realized about their new country a generation ago. I realize that my entry has yielded me great opportunities. I realize, as well, that my route of entry has taken a certain toll. I have neglected my ancestral heritage. I have lost something. Yes, I can speak some Mandarin and stir-fry a few easy dishes. I have been to China and know something of its history. Still, I could never claim to be Chinese at the core.

Yet neither would I claim, as if by default, to be merely “white inside.” I do not want to be white. I only want to be integrated. When I identify with white people who wield economic and political power, it is not for their whiteness but for their power. When I imagine myself among white people who influence the currents of our culture, it is not for their whiteness, but for their influence. When I emulate white people who are at ease in the world, it is not for their whiteness, but for their ease.

I don’t like it that the people I should learn from tend so often to be white, for it says something damning about how opportunity is still distributed. But it helps not at all to call me white for learning from them. It is cruel enough that the least privileged Americans today have colored skin, the most privileged fair. It is crueler still that by our very language we should help convert this fact into rule. The time has come to describe assimilation as something other than the White Way of Being.”

In my case, the struggle was the result of the fact that I had assimilated without problem, and was quite comfortable around white people, and likewise, they were comfortable around me. When I moved to Florida, I came into contact with a greater volume of people from the darker race within my nationalities than I had ever encountered before in my sheltered life as an Air Force brat.

These people I encountered were jealous and had issue with the fact that I was so at ease in my assimilation, and they could not or would not assimilate themselves to gain access to the opportunity they desired. So they spurned me and pressured me with labels, calling me the “white queen, white princess,” and other aspersions of their choice; all meant to belittle me for my success in gaining access and for the fact that I was not like them. They found every thing imaginable to complain about concerning me, including and not limited to the color of my underwear, which I found to be a rather odd zone to focus on, if you feel me.

Their constant attacks upon my person caused me to make a few choices that were not a preference. Just as I am now explaining to my son, who is also having problems fitting in at school, I had to learn to assimilate. The comparison I gave him, (and I will have to borrow some videos from the library to give him a better perception of the issue) is the Borg on Star Trek. Everyone expects the hive mentality, whether it is within the social structure of school, or further within the subculture of culture and race.

I speak perfect proper English, but I had to make a serious effort to adopt street slang and some measure of Ebonics just to get by and speak enough broken English to satisfy my darker counterparts that they were acceptable and that I was not better them as they perceived.

As I explained to my son, I had to do this just to get by, not because I believed it, nor wanted to speak like that or be like the people who needed this validation from me. No one from any of my other inherited cultures has made this demand on me, nor had any issues with the fact that I’m a mutt of many nationalities. No other culture in my nationalities has required that I claim only them as my race, or even as the majority of who and what I am. It’s sad to me that so many in this one culture…this one aspect of who I am, have such an insecurity and need for self value and validation and just acceptance as a whole. There’s such an apparent lack of self-worth, and believe me, I’m not saying that their need for validation is not justified, but I do think its a sad state of affairs for an entire race of people.

This group attributed my success in the white arena to the fact that I had other cultures mixed in my bloodline, and particularly focused on the fact that the white race was among the other cultures. So they claimed that my more “white” features, hair and manner of speaking was the thing that gave me the privilege of access, and they felt that I was better than them as a result. They despised me for my parents and my upbringing. They despised the fact that I was impartial to race and had no issue with dating men of any race I choose. They despised me because I was not just like them; I didn’t live where they lived; I had not experienced the same sort of experiences nor the racism they’ve experienced. I did not have the hatred they had. I called their mentality ‘boxed in thinking,’ and like I said, it’s a sad state of affairs.

“In every assimilation, there is a mutiny against history-but there is also a destiny, which is to redefine history. What it means to be American-in spirit, in blood-is something far more borrowed and commingled than anything previous generations ever knew. Alongside the pain of migration, then and the possibility, there is this truth: American is white no longer, and it will never be white again.”

My goodness, if this election year isn’t evidence of this evolution, I don’t know what is. And this book was copyrighted in 1998-ten years ago. Like I said, I could identify with the reflections and struggles this man described as he analyzed his choices to assimilate from one culture into another.

With me, what he calls assimilation into the “white” race or arena came very naturally, and without much thought or conjecture, because I never viewed myself as any different than anyone else; nor did I define myself by my complexion, and therefore never really had exposure to racial issues until I moved to Florida. At that time, the first group that showed me bias was, as I said before, those of the darker culture in my identity.

But if you read the book and see the questions he examined, even from the perspective of someone of a culture outside the Asian set, but not white, you could clearly understand the reasons for his questions, thoughts and struggle, and I really love how well he articulated this. It is easily understandable by any person of any race or culture that lives in this country.

I was in Barnes and Nobles when I saw this book, as well as several other Asian based stories, which I am fascinated with in general. I find their culture as a whole very interesting, specifically the aspect of loyalty that they ascribe to. So I was interested in several of the books, as well as a book called “Black Like Me,” which was about a white man back in the 60’s getting a medical treatment to turn his skin black so that he could experience life as a black man. It looks very interesting, so I noted it along with the Asian books I was interested in, so I could find them in the library. Anybody else reading anything interesting?

Aside from this…the issue of Forgiveness has come up again. After much pain and internal struggle, I realized that my problem was not the idea of forgiving. My problem was other people’s expectations as to the status of the relationship in question, once I did forgive.

My sentiments are that of Christ…and please don’t misunderstand me. There are some people whose effect in one’s life is so negative; whose constant barrage of discussion and comments about a person is so detrimental; whose attitude is so defeatist in regard to everyone else’s life…critical and judgmental, that it is in one’s best interest to steer clear of that person, because they do nothing but wound with words, their behavior is usually unethical, and the relationships they have are built on lies. So my perspective on this is Christ’s when he said of people in his home town, “Wipe the dust from your sandals…and move on.” (That was paraphrased btw) I mean, I can forgive the person, but when did scripture say that forgiving them means that I have to allow them back into my life?

This has been my struggle because people close to me want to use labels and titles to justify why I should allow this person back into my air space. I’ve forgiven the person, but I cannot tolerate the negative package that comes with their presence in my life, and I don’t feel that the expectations or guilt trips and manipulations of others should factor into the equation. Thing is…this person has not changed, so the effects will still be the same. I’m not demanding change from the person, and didn’t demand it in order to forgive them. But I cannot allow myself to be put back into what equates as an enslaved position simply to please others close to me about the relationship they feel I should maintain with this individual, due to some title or label.

The words “imposing” and “obligation” came up in the midst of my struggle with this situation, and another friend dumped a load of her guilt on me using synonyms of these words because she had never established any boundaries in her life, and suddenly decided after reading a book on the subject, that I was the person she needed to establish them with. I have no problem with her setting up boundaries, but why should I be suddenly blamed for things that I was invited to do now that she has recognized this need in her life?

She claimed all the while that she was not offended and that we are alright, yet kept hurling incidents at me in the midst of telling me that she was trying to help me and that the enemy was attacking. As a result of all of this, I cried a lot and was very hurt and those two words above came floating back to me again, reminding me of the first individual, and reigniting the issue of struggle for me again, which has been a source of physical pain due to the history of the situation.

I had said I had forgiven this person last year, and I did; in fact I was praying heavily for the person in tears, so I know I forgave the individual, but because of other people’s ideology on forgiveness that was being thrown at me like a ball of guilt, I questioned if I had really forgiven based on their interpretation that the relationship must be fully restored with active communication and so forth, especially because of the title the other individual holds as a family member.

So again, I referred back scripture, and I see where Christ did not hold in any special or higher esteem, his own mother, brothers etc; and I still believe that forgiveness does not entail enslavement, and that if a relationship with another causes that, then the end result of forgiving them is to pray God’s blessing on their life and walk away. That’s my take on it. What’s yours? Peace.