Corporate Enemy
Boy, am I in a foul mood today. Blonde Moment, everybody’s favorite temp, was laid off Friday, sending the quality of life around this office plummeting to -236 degrees. Apparently, the budget was moaning and groaning under the strain of paying her three peanuts per hour. Amazing – that two-bit bean counters have more control over who gets hired and fired than the big bosses do. Although it helps if that two-bit bean counter is married to the big boss, doesn’t it?
This plant has increased its staff in every department due to increased volume and stricter environmental regulations, but in my office, where the paperwork has tripled, people are being laid off. So who’s doing all this paperwork now? Solo mio. Yours truly. You’re reading her right now.
Yes, Bill the Cat, I’m very, very bitter. And if you’re looking for me, I’ll be buried under all this paperwork, sulking.
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
A Word to You Quality Men, Part 2
Continuing on from yesterday’s post . . .
My Second Biggest Piece of Advice to Quality Men (or Quality Men Wannabes): Say It, Don’t Play It
I went through a phase in my life about a year ago when I was addicted to Dennis Rainey. Stop laughing! I wasn’t addicted to him in the sense that I had a crush on him; I mean that I was addicted to him in the sense that rarely a day went by when I didn’t listen to his radio broadcast or peruse the articles on his website.
For the unenlightened among us, Dennis Rainey is a marriage and family counselor who, along with his wife Barbara, operates a ministry called Family Life that works to strengthen traditional family values. He’s sort of a slightly dorkier, lesser known version of James Dobson. Anyway, while reading the Family Life’s online articles one day, I came across one that really threw me for a loop. It's no longer on their website for me to link to, so I’ll try to recreate it here as best I can.
In the article, Dennis recounts his earliest days of dating Barbara. I’m paraphrasing here, but he said something like, “I had dated Barbara 52 days out of the 55 I had known her, and I figured it was time to move our relationship up a notch. I chose to communicate that to her by holding her hand. But when I casually reached out and slipped my fingers through hers, she pulled her hand away.”
The rest of the conversation went a little something like this:
Barbara: (A little shocked) What are you doing, Dennis?
Dennis: (Thinking he’s stating the obvious) Um, trying to hold your hand?
Barbara: Why?
Dennis: (Getting really embarrassed by now) Because I want us to move this relationship up a notch. I want us to to admit that we are attracted to each other. I want people to know we’re together, that I really like you.
Then Barbara told Dennis something I’ve never forgotten:
Barbara: Dennis, if you want us to move our friendship to the next level, you owe it to me to express that verbally. You do not have the right to become physical without letting me know exactly where this relationship stands.
My reaction back then was to crack up laughing derisively. Come on! Everybody knows that when a couple begins holding hands, it means they like each other and have a relationship. It’s one of the unspoken rules of relationships! A couple should know this without even having to say a word! How unromantic and cheesy is it to make a guy dictate to you his exact intentions before you’ll let him do something like holding your hand. I mean, when a couple is holding hands, it’s obvious to them and everybody else exactly what their relationship means and where it stands!
Or is it? Barbara’s point wouldn’t hit home to me until several months after Dimples and I met, dated, quit dating and decided to be just friends instead (for reasons too long and complicated to mention in this blog). However, just because we were now “just friends” didn’t mean that initial attraction had faded. One night on a long drive home from his aunt's house last Christmas, I gave in to the romance of the moment and held his hand. Later, when I tried to pull the “just friends” shtick again, Dimples became furious with me. “People who are just friends,” he informed me, “don’t hold hands like that!”
His point stopped me in my tracks. I remembered what Barb had told Dennis and began to wonder if maybe she had been right. Now -- of course -- I’m convinced she is. I had been wrong in assuming that physical expressions in a relationship always mean the same thing to each person. Therefore, physical expressions alone should not be the first and/or only determinant of where a relationship stands, nor should it ever be solely relied upon to define the relationship.
I realize this concept is probably as new to some of you guys as it was to me (although I bet it’s not new to your grandfathers); therefore, it may be going over just as well with you as it did with me last year. So, to garner some support on this issue, I’m going to appeal to the girls:
Girls, think about it. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to find out exactly where you stand with him and find out his exact level of commitment to you before you become physically (and therefore, almost always emotionally) involved with him? Wouldn’t it be great to outline your desires and expectations to each other at each stage in the relationship before you make a physical investment in him? Wouldn’t that save you from crying into your pillow later when you finally realize that holding hands or kissing didn’t mean to him what it did to you? More than it being a nice or refreshing change, don’t you deserve that, being the quality women that you are? I think you do, and if I were giving you the advice here instead of the guys, I’d advise you to demand this from him if he doesn’t offer it willingly.
(Of course, I should offer a disclaimer of sorts here. I know there’s a diversity of convictions and opinions on this subject, but I personally think that holding hands and an occasional kiss is the only form of acceptable pre-marital involvement, and I mean no more than that when I refer to physical involvement. Maybe one day I’ll do a blog entry discussing why I draw the line there.)
Someone could argue that a manipulative guy could lie about his intentions in order to get what he wants from a girl. I certainly agree that could happen. However, I know at least one guy like that, and from what I can tell, he does not want a girl ever mistakenly thinking he intends to commit to her because he hates dealing with the emotional backlash that almost always ensues. Pre-Dimples, he and I used to hang out a lot, and he made it clear that although he likes girls, he rarely if ever becomes attached to them. I used to think that made him a cad; now I respect his honesty.
I’m really grateful to Barbara Rainey for being such a smart lady and very dedicated to propagating her wisdom to my peers and the younger generations. I’m also very thankful for the impact she had on the way I now handle my relationships; it’s saved me -- and the guys I've dated since -- a lot of embarrassment and messy, emotional heartache. After all, when you boil it all down, it's just about being honest and upfront from the very beginning.
Dennis's article didn’t detail what happened after those first weeks of dating Barbara, but in my vivid imagination, I think it probably went something like this:
Dennis: (Having learned his lesson) Um, Barb, now that we’re engaged to be married in less than four months, do you think that, uh, I could kiss you now?
Barbara: (Yanking his tie to pull him to her): Oh, Dennis, you handsome hunk of man! I thought you’d never ask! You better kiss me real quick before I just die of frustration!
And the rest, of course, is history.
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
A Word to You Quality Men
How cool is it that the cover article of last week’s edition of ninetyandnine, The Quality Woman: What She Wants, What She Will Not Accept, and How to Win Her Heart was reciprocated this week by T.J. Clayton who wrote The Quality Man: What He Is, What He is Not, and How to Win His, um…Heart! I read the article avidly, even taking notes. Favorite line: “[The quality man] can live without a female companion, but chooses not to, as one may be able to live without eating healthy, but chooses otherwise.” With lines like that, I’m pretty certain T.J. won’t have/didn’t have any problem snagging himself a quality woman.
Inspired by these two great articles, I decided to share with you quality men (or quality men wannabes) my top two pieces of advice concerning dating the quality woman. So, in my efforts to make this a better world for quality women everywhere, here they are:
PoA #1: Guys, when asking her out, be a man with a plan.
When you ask a girl out, she doesn’t want to have to figure out where to go and what to do. Unfortunately, the following scenario happens all too often:
Guy: Hey girl! How are you? Would you like to go out with me this Friday night?
Girl: Well, my social schedule’s pretty full, but gee, whaddya know? Friday’s the only night this week that I have free!
Guy: Great! So where would you like to go?
Girl: Ummm . . .
I think many guys make this mistake thinking they’re being considerate by letting the girl pick the restaurant and activity. However, letting the girl decide what you will do on the date sends her a huge, neon-lit message that you didn’t put much thought into the date. Most of the time this mistake is easily forgiven, especially if it’s made early on in the relationship. After all, we’re just glad you’re asking us out! But keep it up, and we’ll quickly lose interest. Having full control of where we go and what we do on our dates with you gets boring quickly. A better scenario may go like this:
Guy: Hey girl! How are you? If you’re free Friday night, I have reservations for two at Slimy Sam’s Squid Shack. Would you like to go?
Girl: Squid gives me hives.
Guys, if you get a big negative right away, don’t worry just yet. (If you keep getting big negatives, feel free to take the hint.) However, if she doesn’t like your initial suggestion, the ball is in her court to come up with an alternative:
Guy: Well, is there somewhere else you’d like to go?
Girl: Yes! I’ve been wanting to check out that wildly expensive restaurant that just opened up downtown.
Unfortunately, guys, this is one of the risks you take. You may decide at this point that she’s way too high-maintenance for you, but either way you’re bound by a code of honor (and it goes without saying that you should have one) to go out with her anyway. Suck it up and apply for a credit card or a small loan. Don’t be too put off, however. Most quality women are just fine with Cheddar’s and the bowling alley for the first date or three. (Keep in mind that at some point if a relationship progresses, she’s going to want white tablecloths and candles. And she’s going to want it to be your idea.) Here’s the ideal scenario:
Guy: Hey girl! How are you? Hey, I was thinking it would be fun to go to down to the Wharf this Friday and try some sushi. Would you like to go?
Girl: Sushi's my favorite! I'd love to go with you!
(Girls, I should throw in here that you should definitely sound enthusiastic when accepting a date. A guy doesn’t want to think you’re going out with him because you have nothing better to do. Neither does he want you to see him as just a free meal. And if you want to accept but have to turn him down because of previous obligations, be sure to suggest an alternative day. Now, back to the guys.)
Guys, the whole idea here is to convince her that you’re going out of your way to impress her. It’s easy to ask a girl out (okay, maybe it’s a little harder than we give you credit for), but it’s much more difficult to come up with a date idea you think she’d like. Don’t worry too much that she won’t like your ideas; any quality woman worth her weight in gold will just appreciate the thought and effort you’ve so obviously put into the date and will be gracious if you end up someplace like a monster truck show. (Some quality women even enjoy the occasional monster truck show!)
One last word of encouragement: It’s okay if you’re a little goofy or awkward. At some point before becoming quality women, we were wooed and burned by Mr. Smooth and Sophisticated and tend to be highly suspicious of those types from then on. So if you do something like tripping on her garage step while bringing her roses for Valentine’s Day, she’ll probably just think it’s kinda cute.
Piece of Advice #2 coming tomorrow. In the meantime, if any of you men would like to come up with some advice of your own to quality women, I’d be happy to post it, so bring it on!
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Today I'm Feeling Pretty Useless
My head is in the clouds today. I am just not good for anything. I can’t think straight, can’t keep my mind on anything but this latest development in my life. I filed a bunch of folders without labels and then had to go back and fix them all when I realized it. I can’t think of anything but going home tonight and spending some more quality time with it. I think . . . no, I know I’m in love. (Okay, maybe just infatuated.) I could make a career out of this. In fact, I think I will.
Yes, the latest design I’m developing in my Flash web design class promises to be my best one yet, and I’m so excited about it. Now, I know it’s not as good, mind you, as the designs of the pros, but this one is my baby. Ahhhh, there’s just nothing like trying to figure out if this line should be white or gray, and if it needs to be moved over a pixel and whoops! That threw my design out of center; better hit Control K and . . . oh gosh, is that gradient too large?
Oh, am I boring you? So sorry; I got sidetracked by my one-track mind again. The more I design, though, the more certain I become that this is exactly what I want to do for the rest of my life. What a nice feeling! Exhilarating and comforting at the same time.
So there you have it: the reason why you’re not getting a decent blog today. And tomorrow isn’t looking too good either, so bear with me, pretty please? I’ll be coming back down to earth once the honeymoon's over. Not sure how long it'll last though.
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Toxic Churches, Poisoned Saints, No Martians and Some Good News
You may call them stay-away saints. Or perhaps churchless Christians. Or maybe you even use the hoity-toity phrase post-congregationalists. You may not even know what I’m talking about. Either way, there’s a lot of them, and they’re growing.
According to this article in CharismaNOW, “A recent study by The Barna Group, a California-based Christian research organization, found that about 13 million Americans whom the researchers identified as being born again were ‘unchurched . . . not having attended a Christian church service, other than for a holiday . . . at any time in the past six months’ . . . David Barrett, author of the World Christian Encyclopedia, estimates there are about 112 million ‘churchless Christians’ worldwide. He projects that number will double by 2025 . . .”
Chances are if you know a backslider or someone who (for lack of a better term) “isn’t doing that good in church,” then you know a churchless Christian. While some Christians leave the church because they prefer sin over spiritual discipline, others leave for different reasons. In The Present Future, Reggie McNeal writes this about churchless Christians: “A growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason. They are not leaving because they have lost their faith. They are leaving the church to preserve their faith. They contend that the church no longer contributes to their spiritual development. In fact, they say, quite the opposite is true.” Alarming, isn't it, that so many Christians feel that their churches are poisoning their faith. The numbers point to an epidemic. I may delve more into this subject in future posts, so keep reading.
Elsewhere . . .
Hold off on the Martian barbeque! Looks like they haven’t found any little green men after all. (Special thanks to J.H. for this update.)
Good news for the Philadelphia Four! Their case was dismissed.
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Possible Martian Discovery Illustrates Yet Again Difference Between Men and Women
My boss, Bill the Cat, just walked into my office, head cocked, eyes squinted.
"They may have discovered life on Mars, and the first thing that pops into your head is whether or not they're cute?"
"I'm a girl!" I protested! (That is my defense for a lot of the inane things I do or say.) "We like cute things! We like cute babies and cute guys and cute clothes and cute shoes! Why wouldn't we want Martians to be cute too?"
Apparently that was a good enough explanation for him. He shrugged and remarked, "That's okay. The first thing that popped into my head was whether or not they'd taste good with salsa."
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Pieces of Me
I figure it’s time for my semi-regular Odds ‘n’ Ends entry (this entry always happens when there's not much else to write about), so here’s some bits and pieces of my life these days:
Almost Famous
The fearless leader of 90&9 recently let the staff and other affiliates in on the pretty cool news that he was recently quoted by Newsweek, forgetting that anything and everything I find out about can and will probably be used as blogfodder one day. You can read his comment – the last two sentences of the first paragraph – here.
The Berenstain Bears Get Religion
I was born and bred on these books, but this is the first I’ve heard of their conversion. Touching, but no mention of Jesus Christ at all. Apparently their brand of religion is deity-neutral.
Warning
This entry gets pretty girlie from here on down. You guys may want to skip the rest, and go read the latest sports news from The Bench Warmer.
Popping My Culture This Week
Music: “Good-Hearted Man.” I am loving this laid-back yet groovy song from retro-voiced Tift Merritt. Celebrity Crush: Shemar Moore. In addition to dimples, I am a sucker for beautiful eyes too.
Cars: The new Mustang. This car brings back memories of driving around town in my PawPaw’s ’67 Mustang with my mom. She never got so much male attention in her life!
Fashion: Skirts from Target. I own all the longish ones but the red pleated one. It’s next on my list.
Nature: All this warm, sunny weather we’re having down here.
Biggest Piece of News Since 9/11
Martians may really exist! I wonder if they're cute . . .
On my Dis List This Week
Music: I need more room for this than just two puny lines . . . okay, okay! Anything by Usher.
Celebrity Uncrushes: Michael Jackson. Give the boy a Grammy. Or at least some sort of award for topping Britney Spears as having the world’s most convenient timing.
Fashion: Crinkle skirts. Never. Ever. Ponchos: ditto.
Nature: Those huge, lumbering mosquito-like bugs that fly into my ears and get lodged there.
What Happens When You Leave Your Valentine Chocolates Laying Around For Anyone to Find This kid is definitely her mother's daughter. Gosh, I must be doing something right!
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Women, You Lose
A new study out shows that women have been the biggest losers of the Sexual Revolution so far. Says the article, which you can read here,
“The study, from the current edition of the medical journal Sexually Transmitted Infections, examined data from 1998 to determine the overall health burden caused by sexual activity in the US and found that women ‘bear a disproportionately high proportion’ of the cost that comes with sexual liberation . . . The study found that 5,914 women died of non-HIV related sexual behavior; for men the number was number 1,413. While HIV killed 4,234 women, it was cervical cancer that was leading cause of death for women claiming 4,921 lives. Cervical cancer is caused primarily by the human papillomavirus (HPV), the most common sexually transmitted disease . . . [which] condoms do not protect against.”
Stay With Me; I’ll Get Back to That
In my advertising principles class, my instructor and I were discussing Top 40 music, most of which, as I told him, “makes me sick to my stomach.” He replied that he believes today’s pop/rap/hip-hop music to be a reflection of culture. I countered that it was not so much a reflection of culture as it was a strong influence on culture, and he couldn’t – or didn’t – disagree.
After all, if today’s music were a reflection of the real life as evidenced by the study I quoted above, then don’t you think there would be more songs by some angry, angsty Alanis-like artist screeching out lyrics sort of like the ones below?
Wising Up
by your faithful blogger
The doctor told me today that I have chlamydia
And hepatitis too
And it’s a shame that I didn’t even catch your name
So I could call you
Chorus
You won’t get my money, my house or my car
For you I certainly wouldn’t stick out my neck
But if I look good to you and if you want to
My body’s yours to wreck
Where is the power I once had over you?
The miniskirts and martinis times three?
I thought it was fun but when it’s all done
Looks like the joke is on me
Love? Trust? Commitment? Get over those silly hang-ups!
Romance is over and dead
But it seems that a man and a one night stand
Ain’t as harmless as they said
Bridge
All around the world, thousands of girls
Suffering just like me
When are we gonna say enough’s enough
And stop this charade of misery?
(If any of you see Alanis or Avril, be sure to tell them the song's up for sale. Yes, I know the lyrics are pretty crummy; I still consider them to be highly superior to most of the drivel that passes for chart-topping singles these days.)
Anyway, it feels good to find out that hard data backs up what Christians have been saying for years. Maybe our critics will slowly begin to realize that we weren't trying to cram our morality down everyone's throats after all. Hey, there's always hope!
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Happy Post-Valentine's Day to Me!
Blonde Moment and Dimples conspired against me yesterday. The result was Dimples on my doorstep at about 8:30 yesterday evening, bearing yellow roses for me and Strawberry Shortcake for the little groupie.
(He would want me to make sure you know they’re yellow roses with orange tips.)
I was pretty surprised to see him, considering that my hair looked like a giant frizzball. I tried frantically to smooth it down using every gel and crème and straightener I had in my house, but when I was done my hair just looked like a giant, greasy frizzball. “Give me some warning next time if you want me to have pretty hair!” I exclaimed.
That’s the reason this blog is so late this morning; we were whooping it up pretty late at the Olive Garden last night, and now I’m trying to wake up. That was the first time I’ve ever whooped it up at the Olive Garden. One conversation I can remember of the many we had:
Dimples crunched into a purple onion from the salad and remarked that his breath wasn’t going to smell very good later on.
“That’s okay,” I informed him. “You’re not going to get a good-night kiss anyway.”
“Hey! Look around at all these guys sitting around us,” he protested. “I bet they’ll all get more than a good-night kiss when they get home.”
Was that supposed to make me feel guilty? “Take another look around at these guys sitting around us,” I said. “Ain’t none of ‘em with me, and no matter what, you gotta feel sorry for them for that!”
If I remember correctly, I got a laugh and a high-five out of that. He is such a good sport about my oddball convictions.
When we got home Dimples made the mistake of bringing up the Kennedy assassination to my dad. That’s my dad’s favorite conspiracy theory; he lit up like leftover Christmas lights in a redneck’s yard in July and whipped out all the paperwork he’s ever collected in ten years of study and went over each page very meticulously. If Dimples wasn’t interested, he was at least a very enthusiastic faker.
(He’s also got my dad pretty much wrapped now.)
This morning, he was on the phone with Blonde Moment again, conspiring some more. “Did I do good? Did she have fun last night? Does she want to go out again?” The answers to all those questions are yes, but before I get a rash of e-mails wondering if we’ve now waltzed into the blissful world of coupledom, the answer is no. It takes more than one nice Valentine’s Day to crack this tough nut.
(Although a high-powered microscope might reveal a few hairline fractures.)
So happy post-Valentine’s day to me. After 23 years of getting Valentine's Day presents from no one but my mother, I think I deserved a nice one!
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Happy Valentine's Day!
I don’t normally link to and comment on many articles on ninetyandnine, mainly because I don’t want to show favoritism, but as you're about to see, today I’m going to break that rule.
An Important Article
One of the biggest perks of blogging is that every now and then some of you will share parts of your lives with me. I now have quite a few young ladies (and you know who you are!) who frequently – and others not quite as frequently – open up to me about their love lives, sharing names, details, frustrations and excitement. All of these young ladies have two things in common – they are all quality women, and they have all vented to me about at least one of the issues discussed in an article published on ninetyandnine’s Valentine’s Day issue.
The article is entitled, “The Quality Woman: What She Wants, What She Will Not Accept, and How to Win Her Heart.” It is amazing to me that its brilliant author, Chantell Smith (how else can I describe a girl who introduced me to the awesomeness that is Mat Kearney?), has managed to write an article that every girl with whom I've ever discussed guy/girl relationships can relate.
Heads Up, Guys!
The article, obviously, is for guys (although I know you girls will read it too) and guys, you should definitely read it and pay attention. In my opinion (for what it’s worth), the lovely Ms. Smith’s words capture the heart and soul of every godly single female, including myself. Here’s the link again: “The Quality Woman: What She Wants, What She Will Not Accept, and How to Win Her Heart.” If you want a girl worth having, you can’t afford not to read it!
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Who's Really the Most Influential? And Who's Really Evangelical?
One of my readers sent me this link, which is further commentary on Time's 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America. He claims the most influential evangelicals in America are your own pastors, church members and friends. What do you think?
Also, one of my readers asked, "Why does the exclusion of Joel Osteen [from this list] please you?"
My response: "For some reason I can't totally explain, Joel Osteen just gives me the creeps. He's also one of those 'prosperity doctrine' preachers, a doctrine I believe presents a skewed version of Christianity and does a great disservice to faithful believers everywhere. I believe that Christianity as a movement needs to move away from a concentration on what makes us happy and should become more concerned about what makes God happy. Of course, I am preaching mainly to myself with that statement.
"If you are a fan of Mr. Osteen's, I hope I haven't offended you. Considering he's one of the top preachers in America today, I am sure he has a lot of fans out there . . ."
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
25 Most Influential Evangelicals
Time recently did a cover story on the 25 most influential evangelicals in America, a list that includes T.D. Jakes, James Dobson, Rick Warren, the Grahams and Brian McLaren. Should I be worried that I don't recognize the rest of the names?
Nah.
Anyway, you can catch the story here if you haven't already. For each evangelical, Time lists the number of books they've sold, how big their congregations are, their political scope of power, and blah, blah, blah. Apparently Time selected the people they did by figuring out who had the highest numbers. Christianity Today also has a breakdown of the Time articles here.
Meanwhile, I'm just glad Joel Osteen isn't on the list.
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
A Little Bit of History
I got an interesting letter yesterday I'd like to post. I don't touch on doctrine a whole lot because ninetyandnine isn't a doctrine site, but this story is more historical than anything else. Many thanks to the man who shared this with me (and now you).
"Thanks for your approach to thought-provoking topics such as the godhead. I would like to share with you a bit about my family, particularly as it relates to the discussed topic.
"My maternal grandparents, (names removed) were born, and spent the early part of their lives in the mountains of North Carolina. When the 'greater enlightenment' of speaking with tongues came along, they both received the Holy Ghost and spoke with tongues in the year of 1908. They, as were most people in their area, were Baptist.
"My grandfather told me that when people received the Holy Ghost in those days, most of them returned to their home churches, of which they were still members. They became (mockingly) referred to as "holiness" people. As their numbers grew, splits in churches took place. Many "holiness" people began meeting in homes and in abandoned storefronts. Revivals began to be held in brush-arbors. The meetings were referred to as assemblies."
[Editor's Note: We here at the Just a Little Bit Odd Studio have always found it puzzling that a concept so essential to salvation would be used by Christians as a derogatory label.]
"My grandfather began to preach shortly after receiving the Holy Ghost in 1908. The latter-day revelation of baptism in Jesus name and of the oneness of the godhead had not yet occurred at that time. He became a leader in his group, and soon came in contact with people who had received the 'revelation' of God incarnate in Christ.
This is the point I wish to share with you, Wendy. Men of God in those days were receiving the revelation of God-in-Christ; however, they had not yet found many scriptures to clearly support and explain what the Spirit of God was revealing to them.
Interestingly, the following passage became one of the first, and frequently used, passages to convince others that their new revelation was of God:
'2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. 3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. 4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. 5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid. 7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. 8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves' (Mark 9:2-8).
"Sis. Wendy, this was the passage used by early Pentecostal preachers to try to explain to my grandfather why the doctrine of the Trinity was wrong and why what they preached was right. My grandfather said they picked out the words, Jesus only, and used it to argue the point that Jesus was the only God in heaven.
"My grandfather was an intelligent man, to the extent that he knew the above passage of scripture had nothing to do with the godhead. He knew that all it was saying was that on the mount of transfiguration, a cloud came by, and Moses and Elias appeared. After visiting for a while, another cloud came by, and when it had passed, Moses and Elias were gone. After they left, other than the three disciples, there remained Jesus only.
"Sis. Wendy, most Pentecostals have no idea where the term, Jesus only, came from. When I got in the Pentecostal church, we were known as the "Jesus only" people. One doesn't hear that cliché often today, but for decades, oneness Pentecostal people were almost all (mockingly) referred to as the "Jesus only people." That cliché was attached to us as a result of the incorrect interpretation (and explanation) of the passage referred to above. My grandfather was one of many who helped start that cliché.
"My grandfather thus turned away from the 'Jesus only' people, because he knew their explanation of the godhead was incorrect. He went on and helped establish the Church of God organization, headquartered in Cleveland, Tenn. He was their seventh ordained minister. (They have joined other groups since them, and through them, now claim to be much older.) He established churches for that organization in the states of North Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana, being their State Overseer for many years (like the UPC district superintendent) in both the states of Louisiana and Mississippi.
"After preaching for over fifty years, he retired in the state of Mississippi. In the summer of 1959, just before I graduated from college, I lived with my grandparents for the entire summer, while I worked as a carpenter for my uncle (name removed), their son. During that time, my grandfather and I spent many hours discussing the Word of God, including the godhead.
"After I carefully and clearly explained to him what we believe about God being incarnated in Christ, the son of God being the flesh that died on Calvary, etc., he looked me sort of funny and asked me this question, 'Son, do you mean to tell me that is what you'll really believe about the godhead?' To which I replied, 'Yes Sir, it is.' He then said to me, 'That is basically what I believe about the godhead. I have never believed in a Trinity.'
'What am I saying? I guess I am saying that it is very sad that, while the Spirit of God revealed the oneness of the godhead to my grandfather in the early years of last century, because the 'organized' group who represented the truth of the godhead, presented it in the manner mentioned above, it was rejected as they presented it, by him."
[Editor's Note: Did you catch the lesson in that paragraph above?]
"He spent over fifty years preaching, occasionally speaking out about the error of the 'Jesus only' people, only to find out in his old age, what was really believe by them. At that late stage of his life, I could not get him to be baptized in Jesus name. I think this was largely because since he had preached to others for so many decades and was one of that organization's founding members, he was not willing to change.
"(Of course, when I left the Baptist church and became Pentecost, Church of God ministers threw out the "red carpet" to me in an effort to get me to join my grandfather's organization . . .)
"My grandparents were outstanding people in their own way, and I have many fond memories of their walk with God, for it had a great influence on my becoming Pentecost. (I didn't know there were doctrinal differences when I became Pentecost . . .)"
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Opinionated Bloggers, Depressing Entries, and More on Trinitarianism
Opinionated Bloggers . . .
Brother. You know you are getting just a little too opinionated when you open up a newspaper and bypass the comics for the Op/Ed pages! That happened to me today; I’m a little shocked at myself.
Depressing Entries . . .
Every now and then I take stock of the blog entries I’ve written recently and again, I noticed that my posts have been pretty depressing lately. I have been all work and no play for the past three weeks, keeping my nose stuck in a computer screen doing work/homework, so that’s my excuse. If anyone would like to forward me their favorite joke, I would appreciate a good laugh!
And More on Trinitarianism. . . .
I’m squirming a little today because my conscience – quite an annoying thing sometimes – is telling me I was a little too harsh in yesterday’s entry. I should’ve taken more time to figure out how I could’ve said the same thing in a gentler way. The truth is that up until about a year and a half ago, I too thought that Trinitarians believed in three gods. That belief didn’t last long after I e-mailed a Presbyterian minister with some questions. I still have that e-mail, so I can quote you one of the questions I asked:
"The Jews hold a monotheistic belief, that God is incorporeal and indivisible -- what changed from the dispensation of law to the dispensation of grace? Was the Son present in heaven during the Old Testament, and they never knew it? Or was the idea of polytheism birthed when Jesus was born?"
Remembering my ignorance still makes me blush sometimes. And now, there I was in yesterday’s blog entry not tolerating others’ ignorance very well. One part of me keeps thinking, “He’s a preacher! He should know this! Uneducated preachers perpetuate uneducated saints!” The other part of me is
wondering if maybe I expect more out of a man of God than I do myself, and if so, is that fair?
It is such a curse sometimes, to have the ability to see more than one side of an argument when I care to look.
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Wendy's Little Book of Really Big Advice
The following excerpt is taken from Wendy’s Little Book of Really Big Advice:
“Good Advice #102: When debating Trinitarianism, it is wise to do a little research beforehand to educate yourself on what Trinitarians actually believe. This is true even if you are behind a pulpit and no one can argue with you. For example, if you gleefully proclaim that “one God is all over the Bible,” then continue on to bash Trinitarians for believing in three, you only succeed in making yourself look ignorant and decrease the credibility of Oneness believers.
“Trinitarians believe in monotheism just as much as we Oneness folk do, and they will thoroughly agree with any statement that proclaims “God is one.” If you enter into a debate on the subject, you’d do better to debate whether or not God exists in three persons or just one. (There’s a vast difference, according to any Trinitarian scholar, in believing in three gods versus believing that God exists in three persons.) Also, be careful not to lightly dismiss Trinitarian beliefs as “unlearned” or “unbiblical” in favor of a position that has only been around the modern world for a hundred years, give or take a few decades. Although Oneness believers do not believe that Trinitarian views portray an accurate position on the Godhead, it is not without its valid points or strong arguments, as evidenced by the millions of people and the hundreds of Bible scholars who have embraced this theology for two thousand years, give or take a few centuries.
“Keep in mind that the best way to change someone’s mind is to be respectful of their currently held beliefs. Attack a person’s beliefs, and you will only make him or her more defensive. I sat in a service once where a visiting preacher stomped all over Trinitarianism while utterly failing to produce any Biblical evidence proving Trinitarianism incorrect. While I find these sorts of sermons to be rather common in my neck of the woods – nothing gets Apostolic people to shouting like reiterating what they already believe – I suppose this instance aggravated me more than usual because of a former Trinitarian member in attendance. Knowing that man like I did, I am sure he was troubled to find his thoughtful and contemplative attitude towards Oneness beliefs weren’t reciprocated.”
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
The Superiority of Judeo-Christian Values
The only thing wrong with these articles is that there aren't more of them. Check them out:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Reaffirmation
Found a couple of articles yesterday evening that reaffirmed yesterday's blog entry. Go check out "Arguing Against Homosexuality: A Response to Challenges From a University of California Professor" and its follow-up, "Dialogue With a Homosexual." Very interesting reading.
This isn't the first time I've written something and later found an article (or two) to back it up. Odd . . .
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
A Politcally Correct, Gay-Friendly Gender-Neutral Bible?
Oh, yes. It's here. Says the article,
"The 'degendered' Scriptures were produced for a group called Roman Catholic Priests for Equality. Shunning 'Son of Man,' these Catholics substitute 'Chosen One' or 'Promised One.' Their version of the Bible uses 'partner' in place of traditional marriage terminology to, they say, 'acknowledge and value nontraditional relationships.' To justify altering Scripture, the Inclusive revisers said, 'The Bible is not itself the Word of God, for that would be idolatry. Rather, the Bible contains the Word of God -- or better yet, the Bible is the unique document of human beings' encounters with the Living God.'"
1) Since when is considering the Bible the Word of God idolatry? They must have missed John 1:1, which states that God is His word. You can't separate the two because they are one and the same. (Obviously when I'm referring to the Word of God, I'm not talking about black marks on a white page; I'm speaking of what those words symbolize.)
2) Trying to gender neutralize everything ignores reality. When it comes to people, there's no such thing as a person with no gender. Someone is either one or the other -- or both -- but no one is neutral.
3) Father Jake, an Episcopalian priest, says on his blog today, "We are confronted with a segment of Christianity that use seven verses from the bible to deny the right for some people to enter a committed relationship with the person of their choice. They don't want to talk about it. The bible said it, they believe it, that ends it. Never mind that the bible also says that we cannot charge interest, we can execute disobedient children, and we must never eat shrimp. For some reason, the exclusion or inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians has become the line in the sand. 'Real' Christians would never tolerate committed relationships between same sex couples."
He seems to be unaware that those three situations he mentioned were under the OT law that Jesus abolished in the NT. And a question for Father Jake: What would the world be like today if the majority of people just one hundred years ago were monogamous homosexuals? Anyone even briefly studying environmentalism like I am in one my classes this term would realize that, according the theory of survival of the fittest, a species or gene that is unable to reproduce itself quickly becomes extinct.
4) On the website where the above article appeared, of the 4,397 people who voted before me on whether they thought a gender-neutral Bible would be a good idea, 94% of them said no. Get a clue, RCPE. And all you people who agree with Father Jake. If you aren't the fulfillment of Rev. 3:14-18 and 2 Tim. 4:3, then for Pete's sake, who is?
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
Oh Yes I Am Too a Feminist!
The new A Month in My Life blogger has posted! Until now, Sean (that’s his name) has been blogging over at www.papercutchainsaw.net, and I’ve been reading him for the past several weeks. However, I didn’t link to him before now because I had a feeling he was going to be our next blogger, and I didn’t want to spoil the surprise. Now that he’s live, I can direct your attention to a rather, uh, lively conversation we had when I misinterpreted the meaning of one of his posts on his other blog.
If you go check it out (it starts here; see the follow-up here) you’ll see in the comments section that he said I’m not a feminist. I just wanted to state for the record that, oh yes, I am a feminist!
Feminism seems to have gotten a bad rap among the religious these days. To be called a feminist is almost an insult, and rightly so, for the most part. On one end of the feminist spectrum, you have the femi-nazis who advocate that in order to be equal to men, women should act just like them. These women smoke cigars, sexually harass men and believe a woman shouldn’t try to make herself look attractive. In the middle of the spectrum, you have the bouncy beauties like Ashley Judd who campaign for the grisly murder of children under the guise of “women’s rights.” Then out in the far left field (a huge demographic), you have the feminists who think that in order to exercise their power over men, they should wear as few clothes and sleep with as many men as possible. (These sort of women have actually set all of womanhood back a couple hundred years because as long as women don’t dress as modestly as men do, they will never be equal to men.) All of these women tend to become male bashers when their ideologies don’t get the response from men they were hoping for.
Feminism as it Should Be
According to my definition (which, of course, I believe to be the most correct one), feminism is simply about celebrating all the unique and fabulous things that make up being a woman. It is about not apologizing for God-given feminine traits like being more emotional than men or desiring a wide variety of shoes. It is about knowing full well that women can do just about everything as well as a man can but feeling no especial need to prove it. It is about appreciating when men do things like opening doors for us, seeing it as an act of respect rather than degradation. It is about recognizing that God has given women and men separate but equally important roles in society. My type of feminists realize that both sexes are better off when we respect and try to understand the difference between each other, and that those differences are the reasons we are stronger as humans when we try to live in harmony.
See, being a feminist can be a good thing. So there!
Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail me! I reserve the right to quote you unless you ask otherwise.
