A Response to Thabiti Anyabwile, part II

In my previous post I dealt with what, I suppose, is a peripheral issue. The real issue in Anyabwile's article is probably the sense of hurt at the way white Christians have participated, and may continue to participate, in oppression of other Christians, and that those Christians who could do something about the problem have often stood on the sidelines and let things be. I can understand why this is hurtful. The problem is that this sense of hurt is becoming something more than just a sense of hurt. It is becoming a standard of conduct. Christian inaction in the face of social wrongdoing is considered sin. Should it be? Or, more properly, when should it be? I don't think this sense of hurt can, by itself, be the proper guide for setting moral standards of Christian obligations. We may need to deal separately with the situation in the United States before we can make general rules about Christian obligations. 

Christians cannot be responsible for denouncing every evil in society. As I said in my last previous post, we will always live in a society that is not fully Christian, and people will always be sinning. There must, therefore, be standards by which we determine whether or not a particular form of evil is our business. The bare fact that it is evil isn't enough.  What troubles me is that many people appear to be trying to silence any Christian voice in society, and these people appear to have often been on the Left. Those same people then complain about Christian silence on issues that, frankly, seem a bit nebulous, like economic inequality. Since when does the Church teach that everybody has to be paid the same? By what standard do we decide how much each person should make? While a Christian ethic in this matter gives us good principles, such as the idea that people who work hard and well should be rewarded with good pay, it does not give us the exact number of dollars and cents. Christians can disagree on this issue without disrespecting the Bible. Why such sins as abortion, sex sins, etc? These sins are objective, many of them clearly condemned, and individual.

I have long lived in a society in which bribery is rampant, a way of life. It is not so much an issue of corrupt people bribing officials to do wrong or look the other way. All too often, it is an issue of officials deciding their course based on whether or not they will get a bribe, even refusing to do their jobs unless paid off.  Fortunately, things are getting better. In the older days, people going in for driver's tests would pray they wouldn't have to pay a bribe to pass. That's right; some test administrators wouldn't pass or fail you based on how well you had done. They would pass you without your deserving it if you paid the bribe. They would fail you without your deserving it if you didn't. Now, I don't think a person in that society was complicit for failing to protest about it or denounce it on social media. Everybody knew about this, and lots of people hated it. I think even people who paid the bribes hated it. Refusing to give bribes or take them, particularly when it meant being treated unjustly, was an act of obedience that should not be passed over. I know people who refused to give bribes. Refusing to give a bribe may not have taken as much courage as some forms of obedience, but it did take faith, faith that God saw and honored a small, seemingly impotent act of loyalty to Him in the midst of a system that, at times, seemed corrupt beyond repair. 

I think we need to be careful about setting up hard and fast rules about complicity for all time and all situations. While I think we can say white Christians should have done more to oppose segregation, I don't know that the same thing is happening today. 

On OCD in times of pandemic

 I have OCD and Asperger's Syndrome. Between the two of them, I lack an effective "nonsense filter." Most people have one and don't know they do. The function of this "nonsense filter" is to help people do sensible things. The problem with the universality of nonsense filters is that people's communications are tailored for those with good nonsense filters. They chronically overstate things or say things in ways that could easily be misinterpreted because people's nonsense filters get in the way of their understanding anything. In order to function, I've had to develop my nonsense filter, train it to catch when I'm misinterpreting something, taking it too literally, or taking it to an extreme. I used to get angry at people for overstating things or saying things they didn't mean. I used to hold others responsible whenever my nonsense filter failed and I took something to an extreme. Although I still sometimes get angry, I usually also realize that it's my responsibility to interpret what people say. Unfortunately, I've generally used other people's levels of caution to train my nonsense filter. "Maybe some expert said we need to do such and such, but nobody actually does that, so I won't," or "This or that conclusion sounds crazy, like something Mr. Monk (from the TV show) would do, so I think it's probably extreme." I have to have this nonsense filter. OCD is like a black hole. If you give in to it, it sucks you in further and further. It is like sin. It consumes your life if you obey it. 

A year and a few months ago, people collectively lost their nonsense filters. At least, it seemed that way to me. 

It might seem strange to say that, but that's what happened.  So many of the things people were doing to prevent Covid, particularly at the beginning, were things that would never have made it through my nonsense filter. People were avoiding going outside, sterilizing everything, thinking they could get the virus from cardboard, and calling people irresponsible and selfish for going to the beach. (seriously). How could I know what was true? People were behaving more extreme than I'd ever done, but these were normal people, not people like me. What's worse, I felt expected to go in a direction, to take my thinking in a direction, that I generally avoid like the mouth of Hell. 

Now, somebody will say, "But this was a new situation. We didn't know. This was more dangerous..." Was it really that new? I live in a city where tuberculosis is a thing, there's been trouble with typhus (or typhoid, I don't remember which) at the local market, reports of disease-laden water (even cholera) at the local beaches are a frequent occurrence, and we used to find used syringes in our stairwell. How did I live my life, you may ask? I generally washed my hands after coming home, but not as religiously as I do now. I swam at the beach even when the water wasn't clean (just like most of the people there), and I wore open-toed shoes (just like many other women in the city). Most people don't run the numbers to determine the exact chances of something happening before they decide whether or not it's safe to do something. More often, I think, they go by more atavistic, more primal drives. People fear a danger not because it is dangerous but because it is new. But the old danger, even if it is greater, is met with a shrug and denial. 

I remember being told that I must be washing my hands too much because they were getting dry. I was only washing them as much as good sense said to, and I probably wasn't washing them for twenty seconds. Now, the conventional wisdom is that it's fine if your hands get dry and chapped, even though Covid isn't thought to be transmitted by surfaces. Go figure. 

The needs of people like me have fallen by the wayside. With the national panic underway, the last thing anybody has wanted to do is tell people to use common sense, not to be cautious, and not to be extreme. Yet, these are they very things we OCD people need to hear. It's not enough to tell us to do breathing exercises. That doesn't take away the crazy thoughts, the direction of thought. You can do crazy things and still be really calm about it. You can bleach your vegetables with a low heart rate. You can stay away from the rest of your family because you have some congestion that you'd never worry about except for Covid, that you know is in your head. You can do that with a low heart rate, too. You can wash your hands after every time you touch your phone, even though you're starting to get sores on your hands. You can have such low cortisol when doing it, too! But what you want to do is stop bleaching your vegetables. What you want to do is say that congestion is nothing and live like it. What you want to do is stop washing your hands. But nobody will help you on that journey. You have to defy every piece of advice you can find on the internet and take that step away from the abyss, not knowing if you're protecting yourself too much from the abyss and too little from other dangers. OCD doesn't let you care. 

At this point, I'm tempted to ask, who's neurotic? This pandemic has made me pessimistic about human common sense and about my efforts to have a good nonsense filter. For one thing, being normal doesn't guarantee a good nonsense filter. Anybody can panic. I actually felt like I had a less extreme nonsense filter than some people. The second thing I've had to face (again, I faced it in college) is the way my nonsense filter has been about more than protecting myself from getting sucked into my own extremism.  It's about trying to live a normal life and live up to expectations that I be a normal person. Maybe I've put living a normal life before my own safety. I have to admit there's resentment there. It seems unfair that there are people being more extreme than I ever was and "getting away with it". I'm not sure what the future is for me and my nonsense filter. I'm pretty sure now that I can't trust other people to teach me what my nonsense filter should filter out. 

For all of you out there hyperventilating and saying "She's going to get Covid! She's going to kill us all!" I reply, "I'm not stupid, and I'm not going to act stupid. I'm just done being messed with." 

Power or Justice

 In the wake of the election of Donald Trump, many disgruntled Christians have accused Trump voters of seeking power at a cost and have said that Christians should have "laid down their arms." I think those who characterize Trump voters as power seekers are misframing the issue, at least, misframing the way many Trump voters, particularly reluctant Trump voters, saw their decision. 

First, people characterize a vote for Trump as a desire for power. That wasn't my perception. Since when is wanting to be allowed to follow your conscience "seeking power"? Since when is voting for your alma mater not to be defunded for requiring Biblical sexual conduct "seeking power"? 

Now, I agree that there are times to allow yourself to be persecuted and mistreated for the sake of the Gospel, but that is a different business to merely giving up power. When it is a necessity, it is a solemn one. If we are to undertake such a thing, we must understand what we are doing in the right terms. In a few words, we are permitting people to sin against us. More than that, we are promoting government injustice. Persecution of Christians is injustice. In temporal terms, it generally violates the Constitution, an agreement the government has sworn to uphold. Whatever the faults in the Constitution, it is still a promise our government has made. The Bible commands people to be true to their words. In eternal terms, it is unjust because it inverts the purpose of government. According to Scripture, the government ought to punish wrongdoing and praise righteousness. Persecution of Christians punishes righteousness and rewards wrongdoing. When governments persecute Christians, they have gone mad and are substituting our good for theirs. That is, they are doing us eternal good while harming themselves. Is it not selfish, then, for us to court persecution without giving our potential persecutors every  possible warning of what the result of their actions is likely to be? Do we do an abuser good by allowing him to pummel us if, by legal and legitimate (if unpleasant) means we can restrain the abuser and prevent him from committing further sin? So what if the abuser complains that we should have born our persecution patiently? We know where such statements come from and what their real motive is. 

Now, all this presupposes that the means at hand are legal and legitimate. If a vote for Trump was not a legitimate means, by all means tell me why, but don't imagine that "giving up power" is a light matter merely to be undertaken because the alternative "looks bad" in the world's eyes.  

A word of conciliation: It is true that many Christians who supported Donald Trump have an idolatrous vision of him. Some see him as a kind of messiah. Such thinking is disturbing and wrong. Brothers and sisters in conservative denominations: This should not be! Pastors, preach against it! Let us have no illusions about this man. 

The Goal of the Equality Act or The Bitter Fruits of White Christian Commitment to Segregation

 At one time, Bob Jones University believed in segregation. Interracial dating was forbidden. A university spokesman defended segregation as Biblical. Since then, the University has changed its position on segregation and allows interracial dating. While the reason for its change of stance appears to have been the unfavorable press it got after George W. Bush spoke at the college, one cannot deny that the move removes a threat to the college's ability to receive federal funding (although, in light of the looming Equality Act, that could quickly change).  A jaded observer might be tempted to assume that BJU and other schools changed their policies for convenience and money, and that similar pressures might work again, this time on the issues of same-sex marriage/sexual relationships and sex/gender transition.  

It surprises me that people are trying to force this issue. It almost seems a dog in the manger mentality, like complaining about not getting meat at a vegetarian restaurant. If you want meat, go someplace else. The schools in question are Christian schools, private schools, probably more expensive than state schools. Surely people have other options than going to such schools. There are two main reasons I can think of for why people don't just roll their eyes and leave these institutions alone: 1) Students who"come out" (to themselves, maybe to close friends) while in college (despite the conservatism of my alma mater, such a thing is possible even there, and would have probably been easier before LGBT issues became so big), 2)People want to change conservative Christians' beliefs on sexual ethics. I think the latter item is a major driver of the problem. 

Before delving into the second reason, I will make a few remarks about the first one. I understand there has been an effort to strip accreditation from Christian colleges that hold to a conservative view on sexuality. Such a move would hurt students who "come out" in college. Because I do not think we will change our views on sexuality, I believe schools like Covenant will continue with their policies even if it means losing accreditation. In such a scenario, a student whose views and ideas change while in college would be unable to transfer out of the college in which he/she started getting educated. 

Now for the second reason. Many Christians and denominations that formerly objected to interracial marriage and supported segregation have changed their minds on these issues, and that without rejecting the Bible's inerrancy. As a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, a conservative Christian denomination, I can say that I haven't heard a sound Biblical defense of segregation or condemnation of racial intermarriage. I've never heard a pastor preach against integration or against racial minorities' voting, for instance. The old support for Jim Crow is gone,  but the movement that drove it away came in my parents' lifetime. Further, I suspect that conservative Christian support of racist ideas and policies has damaged our credibility on social issues, and particularly on this issue. 

Considering the change, and the fact that it happened in so short a time, it is surprising to look back and see how adamantly some Christians, or people who called themselves Christians, declared that the Bible supported, even demanded racial segregation and condemned racial intermarriage. In this case, conservative Christians were in the wrong, and many of those who were in the right were liberal Christians. The idea that conservative Christians could be dangerously in the wrong and could use the Bible to support wrong ideas is, at least, an idea with precedent. The change in people's views may not have occurred without the political pressure and cultural shift that occurred in the wake of the Civil Rights revolution. I think some supporters of the Equality Act believe they can effect a similar change by enacting pro-LGBT laws. 

Let us do a thought experiment. Let us suppose that conservative Christian sexual ethics (no sex outside marriage between a man and a woman) are mistaken, not taught in Scripture, or, at least, wrong and dangerous somehow. Imagine that those who hold such views really are in sin the way supporters of segregation were. What motive would we expect to underlie the support of such ideas as conservative sexual ethics? We would expect such motives as pride, hatred, fear, resistance to change, perhaps an unwillingness to repent of past sins. Some people would add desire for power to the list. What result would we expect laws such as the Equality Act to have? Resisting such a law would require one to be willing to endure hardship, face criticism, possibly face misunderstanding. Schools like Covenant would have to rearrange their finances, cut costs. Students desiring to attend such schools would need to either be rich or would need to crowdfund their expenses. The school might need to require students to work for free to help with cleaning etc. Faculty and staff would have to take lower salaries. Keeping the college open without federal funds would require dedication to the college's mission, greater dedication than before. Choosing Covenant would require one to be committed to its mission. Would such motives as pride, the desire for power, hatred, pride, fear, and resistance to change be enough to keep the college going? I'd like to think not. If these motives were the motives that underlay Jim Crow, they weren't enough, at least not for most Christians. Thus, from the point of view supporters of the Equality Act are probably taking, the law they propose will probably work to change people's minds. 

So, what will happen? Because I believe conservative Christian sexual ethics are based on the Bible, I doubt supporters of the Equality Act will achieve the success they anticipate. It may be that some colleges will stop holding their staff and students to Christian sexual ethics. Such a move makes sense at those colleges that don't require staff and students to be Christians. Some colleges will refuse federal funding and keep their policies the way they are (and some may wonder why they didn't kick federal dollars sooner!). What I don't expect is that our denominations will change their doctrines for money. I expect Christians will be willing to put up with a good deal, more, even, than the Equality Act would dish out. I hope Christian persistence will prove a testimony to others and a vindication of our motives. 

A response to Thabiti Anyabwile

This is a response to Thabiti Anyabwile’s article, "The Myth of Impeccable Individualism." Although he makes good points and uses Scripture, his interpretation raises questions. 

To whom is God speaking in Isaiah 1?  

Thabiti Anyabwile quotes Isaiah 1:11-17 to back up his contention that God deals with us not just as individuals, but as societies. This verse, like many often quoted in questions of social justice, is from the Old Testament. What has changed since then, and how do New Testament believers apply these verses? While such questions may seem unnecessary, they are important in light of the fact that these verses were not addressed to any old nation, but to Israel as the people of God. In our day and age, Israel is not the people of God in the way it was in the Old Testament. So, to whom is God speaking in this verse? Can this verse be applied to whole societies consisting of professing Christians along with those who do not call themselves believers? I would say no, for several reasons. First, no nation today is really the people of God the way Israel was. Israel was to be a theocracy. For them, theocracy was no violation of human rights but God’s will. The kings had the right and duty to do the following: persecute people for their religious beliefs and practices, punish sexual encounters between consenting adults, and finance religious behavior. In ancient Israel, such things were right and good because Israel was the people of God. Unless we, as a nation, wish to hold the whole nation to the standard of God’s word through legal force, we cannot equate our nation with Israel. Such a view does not cause us to fall back on the notion of individualism. We, as Christians, are part of a community, the community of faith, the visible church, consisting of both the truly regenerate and those who profess Christianity but are deceived. I believe this community corresponds to Israel because those who rule over it may hold those in it to the standards of God’s Word. Religious diversity could not be tolerated in Israel, as it cannot be tolerated among church members. You cannot be a member of a proper, Bible-believing church and be a Hindu, for instance. 

For this reason, I see corporate responsibility as definitely existing within the church, particularly within each denomination, and especially within congregations, where people are more likely to know one another’s business. If church members fail to confront one another about sin, they are failing their duties. If church leaders fail to exercise church discipline, they are culpable for their failure to take a stand against evil. And there come times when the church must come to an official position on questions of evil. In this way, the Church has failed to confront evil, and corporate repentance may be fitting, assuming those who take up that responsibility really do speak for the church, and act out of true contrition, not merely a fit of teenage rebellion. (See C. S. Lewis, "On the Dangers of National Repentance")

Unlike Israel, the Church lacks the wide variety of institutions and responsibilities which a sovereign nation has. Instead, believers participate in the broader economy, national government, and cultural life. As long as this world continues in its fallen state, these institutions will be marred by sin. Our duty to confront sin in these areas of society is the dicy question. 

 

How to replace a bodyboard cover

Today, I'll show you how to go from this:





















To this:

So, you decided to get one of those cheap bodyboards, a piece of styrofoam with a cloth sleeve around it, not very sturdy. Maybe you didn't have much money to spend, or maybe you were pretty sure you wouldn't use the thing enough to warrant spending big money. Perhaps now you used it more than you expected, or perhaps you got into some pretty serious waves, but now the cloth cover is torn and coming off, and you aren't in a position to buy another one. Have no fear! Making your own new cover is totally doable and, depending on the cloth you buy, can be WAYY cheaper than buying a new board, particularly if you don't live in a place that sells boards at every grocery store.

Materials: 

1. Cloth: Enough to cover your board. Depending on the size of your board and the width of the cloth you buy, as little as a yard may be enough. Measure before you buy.
2. Needles, pins, and thread
3. Chalk, pencil, or something else to draw on the cloth

Directions:

1. If your board has a leash attached, you will probably need to remove it before you put the new cloth on. You may need to remove your leash to get the old cloth off. Turn your board over onto the back. The back of the leash apparatus may have a notch on it like a large screw. If so, you can probably unscrew the leash from the board. 

   

   This is the back of my board's leash attachment. You can see the notch in it. The attachment is in two pieces which screw together and come apart when unscrewed. 

2. Figure out how much cloth you need to cover your bodyboard. Measure the widest part of its width, making sure to account for its thickness (it may help to measure around the board and divide the number in half) and measure its length. You will need to cut out two pieces of cloth slightly larger than this board. It is easiest to round the amount of cloth you need to the nearest yard or meter, depending on which system your country uses for cloth sales. (If you're used to one system and are shopping in the other, remember that a meter is significantly larger than a yard). It also helps to consider the usual width of  cloth, which is typically about 60 inches (152.4 cm), although some bolts are narrower. Always check the width of a bolt of cloth before buying. This means that a yard of cloth purchased from a 60 inch wide bolt would be a piece one yard (36 inches) wide by more than a yard and a half long. Say, for example, that your board is 26 1/2 inches (67.3 cm)long and 18 inches (45.7 cm) wide. Assuming these measurements, you need a piece a little more than a yard long (or about a meter long) and a little less than a yard wide (less than a meter). A yard of cloth 60 inches wide is enough to cover this board. However, if your cloth is one yard wide, buying a yard gives you one square yard, which would probably be a bit too narrow for the width while being plenty for the length. A piece a meter wide and long would be just enough. 
3. Buy your cloth. I used a type of nylon, a tough cloth, which is just right for this project. You want something strong. 
4. Make your pieces: If you have a reasonably intact piece of cloth from your board (I had the whole top piece) you can use that as a pattern. Otherwise, you will need to make some more measurements of your board. Trace around your board, adding about an inch to accommodate its thickness and use your measurements as reference points to help you. Cut the cloth, leaving a GENEROUS seam allowance (I left more than an inch in some places) so you can correct any pattern errors. 

   

   The colorful cloth is my old cover which I used as a pattern for the new one. Note the green cloth around the bright cloth cover and notice the white line around the colorful piece. The white line is what I used to guide my sewing. 

5. Pin the pieces together. You will not sew all the way around the cover. You must leave the wide end un-sewn so you can fit the board into it.  You will sew the rest up by hand. 

   

   If you look closely, you can see the pins around the piece of cloth. Note that none of the pins are on the top of the piece. That is the widest part, and that is where I won't be sewing with the machine. 

6. Try your cover on for size and see if you need to make any adjustments. You may want to try it on inside out so you can baste (make large stitches to hold together cloth that will later be sewn by machine) wherever you see something that needs to be taken in. 
7. Once you have your board cover the way you like it, it is time to sew the board into its cover. Start where your seam ends, fold the raw edges inside, and sew using a whip-stitch (over and over stitch). 
   
8. Now it's time to put that leash back on. Feel for where the hole is where the leash was attached. You will make your hole with a knitting needle or something similar. A pencil might work. If you have more than one kind of knitting needle around, start with a small knitting needle. Push the needle through the fabric, into the hole, and out the fabric on the other side. Be patient. Be prepared to put the thing in and take it out several times. You are tearing the fabric a bit, but you are also pushing the threads apart.
   
   Once your hole is big enough, push the larger end of the leash attachment into place. The fabric will probably tear a bit, but that is all right. Seal the hole from fraying with clear nail polish or fray check. Screw in the other end. 
   
9. Now go catch some waves!

Cherry Oatmeal

This weekend, my parents and I were in the country. As the sour cherries are just coming out, I decided to make oatmeal with cherries in it. As I have already made oatmeal with apples and dried fruit in it, I thought I would try the process with seasonal fruit, knowing that sour cherries taste very good cooked. The result was quite scrumptious, if a bit sour.
Here's the recipe. Apologies in advance that it isn't very specific on amounts. You won't get such a result as we had with just one or two cherries. Half a cup or more per serving should be good.

Cherry Oatmeal
Serves: 1 (multiply the recipe for more people)
Ingredients:
1 cup water
1/3 cup old-fashioned oats
a generous handful of sour cherries, pitted
black currants (optional)
salt to taste
sugar to taste
cracked walnuts (optional)

Directions: 

1.  Measure out the water and put it on to boil. Add salt. While the water is boiling, pit the cherries and measure out the oats. 
2. As soon as the water is at a rolling boil, add the oats, cherries, and currants, if you are using them. Boil for about five minutes, or until the oats are as cooked as you want them to be. 
3. Serve the oatmeal with sugar and, if you want, butter and cracked walnuts. 

When the peaches come out, I just may make this recipe again and report how it turns out!