Misc Books

Even economists think Gary Ezzo is crazy

November 5, 2006 by amanda 2 Comments

Isn’t it nice when you’re reading a book that has nothing to do with parenting or Christianity and then you stumble upon a little jewel?

…Ann Hulbert documented how parenting experts contradict one another and even themselves. Their banter might be hilarious were it not so confounding and, often, scary. Gary Ezzo, who in the Babywise book series endorses an “infant-management strategy” for moms and dads trying to “achieve excellence in parenting,” stresses how important it is to train a baby, early on, to sleep alone through the night. Otherwise, Ezzo warns, sleep deprivation might “negatively impact an infant’s developing central nervous system” and lead to learning disabilities….

…An expert must be bold if he hopes to alchemize his homespun theory into conventional wisdom. His best chance of doing so is to engage the public’s emotions, for emotion is the enemy of rational argument. And as emotions go, one of them–fear–is more potent than the rest.– Freakonomics p. 148

Ahh, I appreciate that the authors of Freakonomics agree that Gary Ezzo is scary. That upped my opinion of them significantly 😉 I was also happy to see that they have six children under the age of five, so they have some idea of what they’re talking about. 🙂
Oh, and shortly after that quote, they said this

…conventionally speaking, spanking is considered an unelightened practice. We might therefore assume that parents who spank are unenlightened in other ways — Freakonomics p. 171

Bwahaha. 😛

Grace Vs. Works

October 17, 2006 by amanda 2 Comments

I had already planned on having this as my next post, but it works out really well considering that the comments from the last post went in this direction 🙂

I want to say before I even start quoting that I almost completely disagree with the author’s description of Palestinian Jews vs. Hellenistic Jews, but oh well. I’m using his version in order to discuss.

From Chapter 2 of Church History in Plain Language

The Palestinian Christians, steeped in traditional Judaism, said, “Tell them that unless they submit to the Jewish law, in addition to believing in Jesus, there is no hope for their faith.”

OK, I agree with most of his description, but not so much the use of the word “steeped”.

Paul, however, found this impossible. His own experience pointed another way. If a person could gain the righteousness of God by obeying the law, said Paul, I would have been the greatest in the kingdom. But righteousness by personal effort can only lead to failure. Man can be accepted as righteous only through God’s undeserved mercy. That is grace. And grace always arises from the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Hmm, so perhaps a middle ground?

Many Christians thought Paul was impossibly optimistic. They were deeply troubled by the decline in Christian morality they felt sure would come in the gentile churches. If you teach justification by faith alone, they argued, people will imagine that once they have accepted Christ by faith it does not really matter how they live.

Again, this is too much either-or thinking. This is exactly what punitive parents say about grace-based discipline. “If you show grace, then people won’t behave appropriately.” Obviously God didn’t feel that way! I almost feel like Bruce Shelley is missing that you don’t have to say that the law was done away with in order to say that we are saved by grace. As I’ve heard it said before, I believe that people who are growing in Christ become more Torah observant whether they know it or not. The spirit of the Torah is all about grace, all about love, and a privelege, not a duty! As Crystal Lutton said – “To the Jewish mind the Torah isn’t restrictions, it’s guidelines, boundaries, the way to be holy in an unholy world!” And I think Shelley is missing that.

On the contrary, said Paul, if they really have accepted Christ by faith, then they have accepted the way of Christ and the mind of Christ. The man who really loves God can do as he chooses, for if he really loves God he will choose to do the will of God.

As my friend said

Paul rebukes the Judaizers. They taught that Gentiles could not be saved UNTIL they became Jewish converts and were part of God’s chosen people. Peter and Paul both experienced God making himself available to Gentiles while they were still Gentiles. Pre-Cross there were Jews, there were converts, and there were God-fearers who lived according to Torah without actually converting. Cornelius was a God-fearer The Jews taught that if they were Torah observant they’d get in to heaven, but they were not allowed to be part of the community in this world. This is what the Judaizers were mixing up. They wanted the Gentiles to be part of the community of faith so they thought they had to BE Jews first. Paul and Peter taught that the Gospel was now for the God-fearer too–that conversion to Judaism was not necessary!

BUT they NEVER taught that what was part of Torah was unimportant or not for the Gentiles too. When I studied the letter from the Council of Jerusalem I found a little gem in the discussionÂ They were talking about what to require of the Gentile in order to *become* part of the community of faith and they settled on the four things. Interestingly, I did a little study into the elements of the pagan communion and it was highlighted by these four things So they had to *abandon* being pagan Then James, I think it was, says, “The rest has been taught in the Synagogues since the time of Moses.” Remember that at this time “The Way” as it was called was a sect of Judaism and they were meeting both in the Synagogues AND in home churches of only believers. (I also believe that the purpose for women being told to stay silent “In Synagogue” was because the non-Christian/Jewish women were not allowed to speak and this was giving them a bad name!). But the new believers were going to learn everything else in time and that was enough according to the Council at Jerusalem.

The ironic thing is, once you actually go and read what is part of Torah, and start talking about the Spirit of it, most people ONLY come back with, “I do all those things already. Just don’t think I could give up pork and lobster” And, tbh, I do believe that the dietary laws are not in effect for cleanliness (though NOT based on Peter’s dream!!!) but I believe everything in Torah to be Wisdom and part of God’s standard and when I studied pork and lobster I realized I didn’t *want* to eat them

I’ve been in the midst of a fascinating discussion with some of my friends on whether or not we have “two natures.” Once we have become a new creation in Christ, are we still naturally inclined to sin? I feel like Shelley is dancing around this topic.

For fellow GCMers, if you haven’t seen the discussion that I’m referring to above, I can send you a link 😉

Church History – Why don’t we know?

October 16, 2006 by amanda 2 Comments

I am once again reading Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley. This is actually my second time through it, but this time I am taking notes and really studying it rather than just pleasure reading.

This re-reading has really reminded me of how frustrated I am that we, as a Christian community, don’t know our roots. There is this ridiculous gap between the early church and the Reformation, and it seems like much of it is just skipped over or ignored. It drives me a bit batty.

As I was reading today about the early church and how much Christian life stood out compared to pagan lives. This has given me a lot of food for thought. I had already been thinking about this after a recent discussion on standing out in the world. I think we really miss how big of a deal it was to be a Christian in the Roman empire. We are spoiled today. As Tertullian put it in Apology, “We have the reputation of living aloof from the crowds.” Is that really true anymore? Somewhere between 77% and 86% in America consider themselves Christians. Riiiight. We’re really living aloof from the crowds. :/
Shelley discusses it as such

The word used to describe the Christian in the New Testament is highly significant. It is the term hagios, often translated “saints.” It means holy ones, but its root suggests different. So a holy thing is different from other things. The temple is holy because it is different from other buildings; the Sabbath day is holy because it is different from other days. The Christian, therefore, is a person who is fundamentally different.

I’ve been thinking about this ever since I read it. It seems like modern Christianity doesn’t really embrace this line of thinking except to condemn those outside of the church. We point out others differences rather than being different within ourselves.

Fundamental to the Christian life-style and cause of endless hostility was the Christian’s rejection of the pagan gods. The Greeks and Romans had deities for every aspect of living–for sowing and reaping, for rain and wind, for volcanoes and rivers, for birth and death. But to Christians these gods were nothing, and their denial of them marked the followers of Jesus as “enemies of the human race.”

So to be a Christian meant that you could very well be rejecting part of every aspect of life. That’s tough.

One simply could not reject the gods without arousing scorn as a social misfit. For the pagan every meal began with a liquid offering and a prayer to the pagan gods. A Christian could not share in that. Most heathen feasts and social parties were held in the precincts of a temple after sacrifice has been made, and the invitation was usually to dine “at the table” of some god. A Christian could not go to such a feast. Inevitably, when he refused the invitation to some social occasion, the Christian seemed rude, boorish, and discourteous.

I wish I had read this back in high school. I think I would’ve felt a little better about blowing off parties. :/

The Christian fear of idolatry also led to difficulties in making a living. A mason might be involved in building the walls of a heathen temple, a tailor in making robes for a heathen priest, an incense-maker in making incense for the heathen sacrifices. Tertullian even forbade a Christian to be a schoolteacher, because such teaching involved using textbooks that told the ancient stories of the gods and called for observing the religious festivals of the pagan year.

Yet another reason to homeschool 😉

We might think that working with the sick would be a simple act of kindness. But even here early Christians found the pagan hospitals under the protection of the heathen god Aesculapius, and while a sick friend lay in his bed, the priest went down the aisle chanting to the god.

In short, the early Christian was almost bound to divorce himself from the social and economic life of his time–if he wanted to be true to his Lord. This meant that everywhere the Christian turned his life and faith were on display because the gospel introduced a revolutionary new attitude toward human life. It could be seen in Christian views of slaves, children, and sex.

Can you imagine if we lived that way today? Its not like our current culture is so wonderful and “Christian” that we should be embracing it. I think that many of us have come to take our faith as just something to be weaved into the rest of life, rather than a new frame for our entire life.
I have tons more that I want to write from the early chapters of this book, but this will do for now 😀

Girl Power!?

July 23, 2006 by amanda Leave a Comment

I am not making this up.

Just in time for my entries on Female Chauvinist Pigs – look what I found in the $1 section at Target. I had to pull out my Treo and take a pic.

That’s right, America. This is what we consider “empowering” for our girls. Our future women.

Wow. How “Girl Power!” of them. Apparently lipstick, hair spray, short skirts, go-go boots, and plunging necklines make us quite powerful, ladies.

Is it any wonder that women feel that they are empowered by acting and looking sleazy? Its taught to us from the time we’re in elementary school

Why do we have to fit into a stereotype to be sexy?

July 20, 2006 by amanda Leave a Comment

I must say that since my last post on Female Chauvinist Pigs, my search engine hits have been some odd ones. You would not believe how many people search for “hippie p*rn” |-|

But now, continuing my thoughts from my reading of Female Chauvinist Pigs

Ariel Levy talks about an interview that she has with Christie Hefner, Hugh’s daughter and CEO of Playboy. During this interview, Hefner talks about how she views the playboy bunny logo…

…[The bunny logo] symbolizes sexy fun, a little bit of rebelliousness, the same way a navel ring does… or low rider jeans! It’s an obvious I’m taking control of how I look and the statement I’m making as opposed to I’m embarassed about it or I’m uncomfortable with it.

Levy points out in her book that if you’re looking at it in this way, then you will fall into the trap that I spoke of in my last post.

I think that has more to do with the current accepted wisdom that Hefner articulated so precisely: The only alternative to enjoying Playboy (or flashing for Girls Gone Wild or getting implants, or reading Jenna Jamenson’s memoir) is being “uncomfortable” with and “embarassed” about your sexuality. Raunch culture, then, isn’t an entertainment option, its a litmus test of female uptightness.

So then Hefner goes on to talk about how olympic atheletes, lawyers, mothers… all sorts of women appear in Playboy. Playboy, in her opinion, appreciated all sorts of women and helped women to prove they were sexy (one example she gave was that the Olympians proved in their spread that they could be atheletic and sexy).

But Levy responds that as you flip through the pages, the Olympians have been molded into the same look that every other playmate has. Its not celebrating what they do – its making them into what everyone else is.

Why can’t we be sexy and frisky and in control without being commodified? Why do you have to be in Playboy to express “I don’t think athleticism is at odds with being sexy?” If you really believed you were both sexy and athletic, wouldn’t it be enough to play your sport with your flawless body and your face gripped with passion in front of the eyes of the world? Rather than showing that we’re finally ready to think of “Sexy” and “athletic” as mutually inclusive, the Olympian spread revealed how we still imagine these two traits need to be cobbled together: The athletes had to be taken out of context, the purposeful eyes-on-the-prize stare you see on the field had to be replaced with coquettish lash-batting, the fast-moving legs had to be splayed apart.

:nodding:

That women are now doing this to ourselves isn’t some kind of triumph, it’s depressing. Seuxuality is inherent… yet somehow we have accepted as fact the myth that sexiness needs to be something divorced from the everyday experience of being ourselves.

I really appreciate the angle from which she is approaching this subject. I’ve been noticing examples of it everywhere in life. Its really fascinating.

Why do we put up with it?

July 9, 2006 by amanda Leave a Comment

Oprah recently aired a show entitled “Stupid Girls” which tackled the role of women in our society. Ariel Levy appeared on that show after Pink talked about her song “Stupid Girls.” Levy wrote Female Chauvinist Pigs – Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture and as she spoke about it I was instantly intrigued.

Levy was on the show along with a girl who was a recruiter for the Girls Gone Wild videos. Levy talked about how if men were male chauvinist pigs before – exploiting women – now women were taking over for them by exploiting each other and ourselves. The girl from GGW talked about how she convinced women to appear on the videos FOR FREE and how it was their own fault if they regretted it. These women were somehow convinced that appearing on these videos was empowering.

Levy and Pink both mentioned on the show that almost anyone could name a sleezy star (Paris Hilton, Jenna Jamenson, etc), and yet we are hard pressed to name an intelligent successful young woman who isn’t getting ahead through sex.

At the same time, our culture is leading us to believe that in order to be sexy, we need to be like porn stars or strippers. Breast implants jumped by about 700% between ’92 and ’04, from 32,607 a year to 264,041 a year. Surgeries are on the rise for vaginoplasty and labia operations that do not increase pleasure, but make it look more like a porn star or stripper’s parts. Are we completely forgetting that their job is to IMITATE arousal? They are a cheap replica of the real thing, and women are now being led to believe that to be sexy we must imitate the imitators! How ridiculous is that?!

Levy says:

This may seem confusing considering the “swing to the right” this country has taken, but raunch culture transcends elections. The values people vote for are not necessarily the same values they live by. No region of the United States has a higher divorce rate than the Bible Belt. (The divorce rate in these southern states is roughly fifty percent above the national average.) In fact, eight of the ten states that lead in national divorce are red, whereas the state with the lowest divorce rate in the country is deep blue Massachusetts. Even if people consider themselves conservative or vote Republican, their political ideas may be just that: a reflection of the way they wish things were in America, rather than a product of the way they actually experience it.

She talks about how at the same time Bush was elected to his second term, the number one tv show in red areas like Atlanta (which voted 58% for Bush) was Desperate Housewives, which far from promotes family values or great women role models.

She then says

Playboy is likewise far more popular in conservative Wyoming than in liberal New York

Ah. That’s nice to hear.

So why is it that we accept the porn stereotypes as the norm? Why are we considering that to be sexy? Why do women go around wearing Playboy bunnies and “porn star” shirts and consider themselves liberated and sexually free? That is the most ridiculous thing I can think of!

I’ll definitely write more about this later