Welcome to this week’s installment of Weekend Compilations.
Sunday: Roger Olson gives his “Thoughts about ‘A Year of Biblical Womanhood’ by Rachel Held Evans.” He writes, Some complementarian bloggers are attacking it without reading it (based on what they’ve heard about it from others who may or may not have read it). This reminds me of the brouhaha over Rob Bell’s Love Wins. I’d like to challenge people to either read the book or shut up until they’ve read it.”
Monday: Luke, over at A Deeper Family, talks about “Love and Legacies.” He writes, “He was in the smile of the Bangledeshi boy in the picture, the one who’s finishing up school thanks to my grandparents’ sponsorship. He was in the laughter of the four daughters he raised as they sat around the table reminiscing. He was in the comforting embrace of my cousin as she found me sitting quietly in the dark, shoulders hunched and cheeks stained with fresh tears. There was love everywhere in that house. He was gone, but he was everywhere in that house, alive in the love and beauty that he left behind, in the memory of those moments he brought the Gospel to life.”
Tuesday: Justin lee asks if “You can Feel the Sex Tonight?” He writes, “I loved Timon and Pumbaa, and so I distinctly remember when, during all the press surrounding the film, I read that Nathan Lane, the voice of Timon, had said that he believed Timon and Pumbaa were a gay couple. I was furious. How dare he?, I thought. I don’t care if he is the voice of the character; how dare he try to sexualize cartoon characters? I didn’t know then that Nathan Lane was gay himself, but if I had known, it would only have made me angrier. In my mind, he was trying to assign sexuality—and a perverse sexuality at that—to two characters who were clearly just friends in a movie aimed at children. What could be more inappropriate? I was 16, and it would be at least two years before I began to suspect that I was gay myself, and even longer before I began to understand what being gay really meant.”
Wednesday: Brent Bailey talks about “When Reconciliation Gets Boring.” He writes, “The main danger I see with any demonstration is the risk of poor communication, such that the demonstration’s recipients perceive a different message from what the demonstrators mean to say. This was, in my opinion, the tragic flaw of Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day in August: Some ate Chick-Fil-A because they disliked gay marriage, and others ate Chick-Fil-A because they liked free speech, and others ate Chick-Fil-A because they disliked the backlash against Chick-Fil-A, and all of this poor communication and disunity somehow translated into outsiders hearing an unequivocally anti-gay message. (On that note, the less-publicized Kiss-In a few days later was equally muddled and ineffective to the point of being detrimental.)”
Thursday: Micha Boyett (the original post was at A Deeper Church) talks about “Walking to Church.” She writes, “When your kids need a snack and you can walk down the street to grab a couple of bananas at the corner shop, or stop by the local café for an afternoon hot chocolate on a cold day, or when you can perform your daily tasks without needing the separation of enclosed vehicles; you are forced to participate with your world. If you have to walk city streets to get to Walgreen’s, it’s often impossible to shield your kids from the reality of homelessness. You are forced to confront its ugly existence with your kids beside you. You’re forced to not only talk about compassion but allow your children to witness your own response to the broken lives in front of you. Walking on the sidewalk demands community.”
Friday: Roger Olson shares the thoughts of a Christian Feminist on Feminism. Kyndall writes, “The heart of feminism, or, at least, the version of feminism that attracts me, is the notion that women and men are both fully human, worthy of dignity and equal treatment. Feminism is more than simple egalitarianism, however, because it recognizes patriarchy is far more pervasive than most of the population recognizes, and feminism wants to challenge patriarchy wherever it is found. (By patriarchy, I mean the suppression of both female persons and feminine ways of being under the coercion of male dominance, granting a distorted masculinity excessive power and legitimizing the disparaging treatment of women based on gender.)”
On my blog this week I wrote on Thursday about “Our Binary Political System.” I write, “Which makes the striving between the two parties seem a little odd. Because they’re not that much different. The vehemence expressed about Romney’s tax returns or Obama’s birth or whose taxes are going to get cut and for how long and whether all or just most illegal immigrants will get this or that benefit betray a fundamental lack of difference. These two machines are entrenched in power. And they have a vested interest in maintaing that power. And maybe that’s why voters want impassioned candidates and then don’t like it when they actually clash. Maybe they’ve sensed that their clashes aren’t all that serious since both parties are hardly different from each other. And, since these two parties control the discourse, we will never find ourselves seriously reconsidering a great many of our national assumptions. Since these two machines occupy spaces on the political grid right next to each other, the only thing to fight over are those who sit right in the middle.”