Can We All Just Calm Down for a Second?

I'm really happy right now.  I've been feeling good for a couple weeks. Good enough, in fact, that my brain is trying to find ways to sabotage my happiness, because it knows that for every happy moment I steal, there's hell to pay later.  The devil gets his due.

SHUT UP, BRAIN and let me be happy.  So that's something I'm working on.  (I'm now going to update y'all on my life now, but the real meat of the post is farther down, in case you want to skip it.  Or whatever.  I don't tell you what to do.)

I'm really enjoying my job.  It's only-just-above-minimum-wage at Starbucks, but I'm getting 2 raises in the coming months (one for being there 6 months and one because everybody at Starbucks is getting a raise in January - people are rumbling about raising the minimum wage, so I imagine they're trying to get ahead of that so it's not such a blow when it does happen.  Good for them.  Good for me).  I think that some of the enjoyment comes from just being an employee again - I know exactly what is expected of me at all times, there are no ambiguous social situations to navigate, and I don't have to be in charge of anyone.  It's much less stressful.  

My last job pretty much required a codependent attitude in order to survive.  I was basically on-call every day - if they needed help, I was the only person who could come in.  It's kind of nice to be so desperately needed, but you can never really relax when you know that a call could come in at any hour and you'd be needed - and you can't really say no.  Part of this is because we were such a small unit that we couldn't really afford to hire any more people, part of it was some issues with "upper management."  But seriously - I'm not an EMT, I was working in a college cafeteria.  Ain't nobody got time to cut years off their life with the stress from that bull.  Beyond that, I feel like there was so much time there when I wasn't sure what was expected of me moment to moment, and we didn't get regular reviews, so it was hard to tell if you were doing good, bad, or indifferent.  You were fine until suddenly everything you did was terrible, then you'd get ignored for another 5 months.  It was weird, and stressful, again, to never know when the hammer would come down.  So between that and being "on-call," just every minute of on and off time was filled with anxiety.  Yuck.

Starbucks is working out great so far.  I can ask for days off!  I work with only nice people (who can ever say that?  Me!  Right now!)  I am good at this stuff.  I can relax when I'm home - be home at home and work at work.  Plus, free lattes ;)  And tips!  And healthcare!  

But anyway, the point of this post right now is to talk about my "biological clock" and how it needs to shut itself right the hell up.  (Not a Sparrow Falls...you might not want to proceed).

One of the great fears among a life of great fears...

"One of the great fears among a life of great fears, perhaps the last great fear is the fear of being no longer useful. We find a role in life, and we do that role to the best of our ability for as long as that ability is there. But all of us — even me, dear listeners — will someday hit a point where we no longer are able to do that thing that we define ourselves by doing. And more than the fear of injury, more than the fear of death, this is the fear that looms. The loss of self. The self that is self we imagined we were our whole lives. But we were never that self, not really. We were only a series of selves, living one role and then leaving it for another. And all the time convincing ourselves that there was no change. That we were always the same person, living the same life. One arc to a finish, not the stutter-stop improvisation that is our actual lives.
Worry less about the person you once were. Or the person you dream you someday will be. Worry about the person you are now. Or don’t even worry! Just be that person. Be the best version of that person you can be. Be a better version than any of the other versions in any of the many parallel universes. Check regularly online to see the rankings."
--Cecil Baldwin, Welcome to Nightvale

That's all for today, just that quote. Because I found, when I listened to this episode, that I needed it. Here it is, in case I need it again. Here it is, in case you need it, now and again.

Leaving the WELS, Never Easy

So, working at Starbucks is killing my writing.  Not that I was doing a ton of that anyway, but I'm a night owl, and my writing-brain usually turns on between 7:30 and 9, which is prime bed-time for me now.
Which is not to say that I don't love my job, because I do.  I work with only nice people (for the first time in my life - and I'm not exaggerating - literally, ONLY nice people.  Awesome!)  I have benefits.  It's tough supporting both myself and Husband on near-minimum-wage, but with food stamps (so great) and a little help from the parents, we're doing ok while he continues his job search.
Obviously, this post isn't about any of this.
The title comes from an REM song that I like.  It's not my favorite, but when the day arrives that I can't think of an REM song that's at least mildly related to the topic at hand, I might as well just stop living.  I like REM, is my point.  Also, the lead singer from REM looks a bit like a bald, sad Ewan McGregor, which is a fact that the world must acknowledge.
That's still not what this was meant to be about.  I suck at this blog crap.
Well, to be honest, I'm dancing around this because I'm at a weird crossroads and there's religious and personal and bitter and scary stuff all tied up in it, so I'm avoiding talking about it.
I've decided to leave the WELS, the church body that I was raised in.

My (Very, Very Incomplete) Thoughts on Abortion

 Here's another one that's been mulling in my mind for a long time now.  My 3 regular readers (Hi guys!) have seen it pop up a few times as I have begun to contemplate it.  It's about abortion.  Eeww.  I'm not sure how much my opinions have changed, but I am aware that they are on the move.  So here's my brain as it grapples with an incredibly difficult and divisive issue.
(Another opinion that's on the move for me is my affiliation with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.  I'm not going to write about that now, but I will when I've had a chance to think through it better and gather my thoughts...but I'm actively seeking a LCMS church to attend in my area.  So, not a huge change, I know - I'm Lutheran, dammit, and I loves me some liturgy, so there's only so far I can drift.)

ANYWAY
What started it is this article: When evangelicals were pro-choice.  Here's the juicy bit (verses, as always, linked for your convenience):

"In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:
“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”
The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well."

Whoa!

Ok, so this is a sort of non-post post. I've been dealing with some shit in my personal life that's put me behind, and also I'm working on a post dealing with abortion, even though I'm pretty sure no one wants that, because, quite often, writing these things is how I sort them out myself, in my own head. I need to do that. That topic, however, is WAY more tangled and confusing than anything I've tackled thus far, to my own very great surprise.

Anyway, I caught wind of a fabulous discussion happening in my vicinity, and thought I'd share part of it with you (none of it is my own words).

I have an internet friend who is a cultural Jew, an actual atheist, an expert historian on Victorian sexuality (specifically same-sex relations [if I understand that correctly]), a regular Anglican church attendee (while she was in Cambridge), and an all-around interesting, thoughtful, and lovely liberal person. She undertook to read the Bible, in an attempt to understand more of her own heritage and the prevailing cultural norm, etc. I have great respect for that - not a lot of people would do it (Interesting! Thoughtful! Lovely!) She's been posting little updates and questions as she goes. Today's was this:

"My jaw drops lower with each chapter of Leviticus, which manages to top the last in moral precepts completely and utterly at odds with the world I live in. Liberal members of the Abrahamic faiths, how do you even cope with the fact that this text is a central part of your scriptural tradition?!

Oyster Man

Ok, here's another fiction piece. It's one I've been holding back for a while, because I can't quite get it right, but I think that maybe this is as good as it's going to get. It's not bad, but it's not as beautiful or as salty as it is in my head. Anyway, it's called Oyster Man, for no reason whatsoever:

In my dreams, I see the future. I don’t know how, or why, but I know that if I want to keep doing it, I have to stay pure. I know this the way one knows things in a dream, without needing to be told, without doubting the veracity. So I have my little rituals. I stay clean, I don’t touch other people, I only buy certain brands of clothing, that sort of thing. I always know what to do. A few of the prohibitions rankle me, but the reward is so very worth the price.
In my dreams, I am alive. Vibrantly, shiningly, gloriously alive in the way one can’t be alive in life. My life is Plato’s cave, but in my dreams, I see Truth. Everything I dream is true, comes true. Every single thing.

She came to me one night in my dreams. I stood on my balcony and She walked down the telephone wire to get to me. Her hair was black, Her lips were red, and Her eyes were the sea itself, liquid and profound. She wanted me for Herself. “Come with me,” She said, “Dream for me. I can give you freedom. Freedom to dream, freedom from purity,” But I don’t let Her finish. I turn and open the sliding glass door. I do not trust Her. I dream only for myself.
In my dream, the storm whips around me. She calls out my name, 3 times. “Amos! Amos! Amos!” I turn my back and begin to go inside. My vision blurs.
My dreams are never indistinct.
 Cold wind blows the rain into my apartment. Papers fly. Huge gusts knock over my bookshelf and send me sprawling. I turn my head to look back, shielding my eyes with one hand, and my vision clears. She drops her arms and the wind dies and she is gone. I wake in a sweat. I spend the rest of the night tossing in bed.

The Innkeep's Perspective

So, here's a bit of fiction.  It's from a writing prompt where you're supposed to talk about a historical event from the perspective of someone in the time - I went with a random innkeeper in the town of Gevaudan, between the royal hunters' supposed killing of the beast and Jean Chastel's supposed killing of the beast.  It was mostly a practice in dialogue (or monologue, I guess).  But here it be, hope you enjoy it.

"I don’t think much of it, either. It’s been a year since those fancy sods left, taking their prize with them. 'Msgr. Jean Charles Marc Antoine Vaumesle d'Enneval' gets to take his fancy new titles and his great big sack of money and settle down. It wasn’t even 3 months later there was another attack, but nope!  The beast’s dead!  Musta been something else hurt those little girls.

Short Hair, Don't Care

THIS:

When Suits Become a Stumbling Block: A Plea to My Brothers in Christ - See more at: http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/#sthash.z16WBDam.dpuf

When Suits Become Stumbling Blocks: A Plea to My Brothers in Christ

Read it.  Savor it.  Then go, and sin no more.

From the comments:

"What about saving your body for your future husband?"
Well, looking at something doesn't mean you own it.  Exposing something doesn't mean you share it.  This is why you neighbor doesn't occasionally drive your car to work, even if it's sitting in your driveway every day.
And while we're on this metaphor, can we stop comparing women to cars and, occasionally, cows?  Weirdly, people are different than objects.  The fact that we can compare a woman to a car and then go on, in the same metaphor, to show how cars are more respected is really, truly alarming.

"But your body doesn't belong to you, it belongs to God and your husband."
First of all, if you're so concerned that I'm desecrating the holy temple that is my body, I hope you're really, really fit.  Like, mostly vegetarian, working out several times a week kind of fit.  Anyway, God said to be "modest."  Modesty is cultural.  Paul talks about braiding hair or not having short hair, and we tend to ignore those rules because, really?  Who thinks about hair that much?  Ancient Romans, evidently.  Modesty is a moving target.
I would argue that the intent of the exhortations on modesty had more to do with the intent of the one being modest.  Why are you wearing that?  Because it's comfortable?  Because you like it?  Or to attract sexual attention?  I have a baggy hoodie that I have worn, on purpose, to attract sexual attention, back in my naughtier days.  It may sound odd, but it worked like a charm.  No one on earth would have called that sweater "immodest," but it was, because I was immodest in my intent.
Also, a man's body is also God's, but nobody shames them for jogging shirtless.  Or wearing basketball shorts with nothing underneath (one of my favorites).  So let's not pretend this article isn't relevant.
As to your body belonging to your husband, his body also belongs to you.  Read the WHOLE VERSE.  It's not about possession.  It's about mutual respect, commitment, and taking care of each other.  It's about - wait for it - consent.  Consent.  Good word, consent.  We should talk about consent more often.  Because consent is important!  Boy, do I like consent.  It's weird that consent seems to be something only "the left" or "the feminazis" are talking about, because consent is right there in the Bible.  Inside marriage, consent is still a thing.  Wow!  Consent!  (Ok, I'm done now.)

"Men and women are different.  Women don't think that way...Something something Testosterone" (also, any comment where womens' "lust" is put in "quotes" like a "unicorn" who "doesn't exist")
I'm sorry, have you met me?  Here's an awkward fact: I have only once dated a man who could match me in sex drive.  Not that it's a big pool, but that's like 25%, so still less than half.  So don't talk to me about women having less of a need for sex.
Also, where is that in the Bible?  Where does it say that men and women are innately built to be different?  I haven't figured that one out yet.


"Women can't be sexist!" (A complaint that an article written by a woman was one of those satirized)
Yes, in fact, they can.  Next question

"Paul argues against tempting others in 1 Cor 8"
This is an interesting passage, and I tend to view part of it as evidence that sin is whatever we think it is - that is, if something is not specifically forbidden by scripture, but we, for some reason, think it's a sin, then do it anyway, we actually have sinned, even if it wasn't originally a sin.  That's a whole different discussion, with so many tangents and dangerous arguments, but I'm well aware of the verse.
Anyway, Paul is talking about peer pressure.  If we were to apply this to clothing, it wouldn't be: That person is wearing a short skirt -> I'm going to go have lust over here and/or I guess it's ok to rape her.  It would be: As a lady, I notice that that person is wearing a short skirt, which I think is a sin -> But if she's doing it, I should too -> Oh no, I'm wearing a short skirt and now I have sinned.  We should, certainly avoid causing our brothers and sisters in Christ to sin.  However, we simply can't have enough knowledge of a complete stranger's tastes and moral standing.  We do our best.  But the amount of shaming that flies around about this one thing is ridiculous.
So: If you have a male friend, and you know he has a thing for, say, tennis skirts, maybe don't wear a tennis skirt around him.  Maybe don't play tennis with him.  But if you're playing tennis with other people, don't feel like you have to wear sweat pants just to avoid having complete strangers lust over you.  Play tennis like a human.


WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST BE HUMANS?
I don't know, It's like 6pm and I work at Starbucks now, so I'm too tired to end this post because it's almost bedtime and I haven't eaten supper yet.  I just got all...infuriated on my insides while reading the comments to this awesome satirical article.  I don't know why I went down there.  YOU NEVER GO DOWN THERE.  I wasn't even going to do this tonight.  LEAVE ME ALONE, WORLD.
Um...
KBYE

This is one of the most misunderstood teachings in Christianity… Christians believe that our bodies, in marriage, belong to ONE ANOTHER. Not “your body belongs to your husband” or “to your wife”, but to each other. .. which means you are to treat one another with the utmost in respect and love.
It’s not about possession. It’s about commitment and mutual respect.
- See more at: http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/#sthash.z16WBDam.dpuf

This is one of the most misunderstood teachings in Christianity… Christians believe that our bodies, in marriage, belong to ONE ANOTHER. Not “your body belongs to your husband” or “to your wife”, but to each other. .. which means you are to treat one another with the utmost in respect and love.
It’s not about possession. It’s about commitment and mutual respect.
- See more at: http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/#sthash.z16WBDam.dpuf

When Suits Become a Stumbling Block: A Plea to My Brothers in Christ - See more at: http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/#sthash.z16WBDam.dpuf

Grief, Anger, Prayer

Here's one that's been mulling a while as well.  Another big one, like the forgiveness thing.  It comes from places very personal to people close to me.  
My mom is going through a very painful (and biblically sanctioned) divorce right now - after 20 years of marriage.  It's a difficult process anyway, but made all the more difficult by an unsupportive pastor, a soon-to-be-ex-husband who continues to disrespect her, and a community of fellow Christians who judge her for being angry.   
At the same time, I have friends who recently found out that they can't have children.  Perhaps they'll adopt or take some other option, but for now, I imagine it hits like a betrayal.  A betrayal of one's own body, and even a betrayal by the One who made those bodies.  A strong Christian couple, who I have no doubt would be awesome parents - how can He do this to them?  Here again, there are people - fellow Christians - who want to say, "You shouldn't be angry."
Now honestly, I have no real clue what the people in either of my stories is going through.  I haven't had to go through anything like that myself.  But I know grief, and that's what this is.  People talk about grief in situations of death, but it can (obviously, I would think) be relevant to other situations as well.  It's still death, of a sort - death of a marriage, of a dream, whathaveyou.  The Bible certainly takes such things seriously - barrenness and adultery are used frequently as illustrations and examples of bad things in the Bible.
Now, I've got 3 things all tangled together in my mind as a result of this - Grief, Prayer, and and Anger.  What is grief?  Is grief different for a Christian?  How do grief and anger affect prayer?  Is it ok to be angry?  Is it ok to be angry at God?

FORGIVENESS is a Big Freaking Word

This is a long one, and one that's been mulling for a long time.  I still don't know if it's quite sufficiently finished, but I think it's reached the point where it needs to be let loose.  The subject is:

FORGIVENESS

Prepare yourself, because this one's a monster.  Because I love you so much, I've broken it down into topics for easier digestion, thus:

Why do we forgive?

This is a tricksy one.  I mean, "because God said so" is a bit obvious.  But why did he say so?  It's a child's question, but one we don't ask frequently enough.  (Certainly, there are things that I have to, in the end, leave at "because God says so," but I think it's valuable for our own growth, understanding, and faith if we try to understand why God requires of us the things that he does.)  The answer I've come up with has 3 parts.

First: Because we have been forgiven.  This is the obvious one, based on Jesus' parable of the unmerciful servant.

Second: For our own health and salvation.  Selfish!  According to a 2004 article by Jordana Lewis and Jerry Adler of Newsweek, research on being unforgiving shows that holding a grudge can lead to "increased blood pressure and hormonal changes -- linked to cardiovascular disease, immune suppression and, possibly, impaired neurological function and memory."  This also has a parallel in the Matthew: "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Third: Because other people are people.  One of my favorite C. S. Lewis quotes (and one that continually reminds me how far I have to go in my journey) deals with this, peripherally.

In Which I Completely Freak Out, But It's Really All Okay...Mostly

I had to switch psychiatrists when I changed insurance (which I had to do because my company cut health insurance, and claimed it was Obamacare's fault, even though we all know that's bull*).
My previous one was very gentle with medications.  She put me on the lowest effective dose of my medication, and even though I still had a few highs and lows - some days I'd wake up, start 5 projects, not finish any, take a nap, and then be normal; some days I'd be cycling negative thoughts all day, then take a nap and be normal - I was able to function and was doing ok.  I've said it before: medication changed my life.  It's good for me.
I chose my new psychiatrist based on how I only had a month left of pills and she was the only one in the whole Aurora system who would see me without a referral from an Aurora psychologist, despite how I've been on these pills for 3 freaking years and only 3 total doctors' visits are covered by my insurance so I don't have time or money for your shit, Aurora!  (My last psychiatrist saw me every 6 months or less, so I didn't think the "3 dr visits/yr" thing would be too too terrible - 1 physical, 2 psych, done.  Sure, there are emergencies to cover, but I'm poor, and I had to weigh the monthly cost vs the possible cost of an extra dr visit or two, and it came down to: sometimes we run out of food between paychecks, so bigger monthly cost is just not going to work for us.)  This new psychiatrist is not averse to medication, and doesn't seem to care how many of them she prescribes.  The first thing she said to me after looking at my papers was, "Did your previous doctor ever tell you why she didn't raise your prescription?  This isn't a therapeutic dose.  This isn't safe.  Those little highs and lows can build up and trigger a larger episode."  Cue freakout #1.

On Harry Potter, &c

Awhile back, I posted an angry rant about people discounting the contribution of fandom to their obsession of choice (specifically, Harry Potter fans).  Now, while I stand by everything I said there, I suppose I was being deliberately inflammatory with some of it.  To be honest, I do have some respect for JK Rowling as an author.  She may be lazy with her plot devices, and she may not really "get" fantasy (which still burns me, I'll be honest - you don't come in and write a fantasy book - a good fantasy book, and then go on to reveal your own ignorance and disrespect of the genre - BUT ANYWAY), but she does write awesome characters.  And really, if you're going to be a writer, it's hard to be good at everything.  If you're going to be anything, it's hard to be good at everything.  With considerations of plot advancement, character development, dramatic tension, novel ideas, etc, something's gotta give.  To be honest, the only thing you really can't drop is the characters (at least in my opinion).
So I fall on both sides of the fence with JK.  I love her and I hate her, I love and hate her books.  But mostly I love the books.  I love the fandom.  I love the characters and histories she's created.  If her books have some horrid failings, well, I can overlook that.  I'm the squishy kind of English Major (20 & 25, really).

On Young Readers, Growing Up, Moral Outrage, and Other Nonsense

Ender's Game and the two series that spawned off of it were my favorite books in High School.  I read them every year or so for a while, because I would start to miss the characters, like friends I hadn't seen in a while.  I'm told that they're not as good as I remember.  I'm told that people who still cling to those books tend to have the same crazy beliefs as their writer, which is disconcerting.  I was shocked when OSC started with all his defense of marriage stuff, because the main things I remember about his books were that they were about accepting people for who they were without judgment.  Maybe I was reading different books than I thought I was, but those books had a big impact on my development and how I chose to interact with the world, and that's meant trying to understand people's intentions and seeing the humanity inherent.  I almost want to read these books again (it's been quite a few years), but I'm almost afraid of what I will find with fresh, adult(ish) eyes.
This brings me to this article, about the privilege of being a young reader.  It starts with a discussion of Ender's Game and brings it around to talk about the way that adults talk about children's literature.  People who argue loudly for free speech, against censorship, take a different stance on children's books, because children are "impressionable" (read: "stupid").

Stories of Mental Illness

Lately, I've realized that as much as I go on about fighting the stigma of "mental illness," I mostly only post about depression - even though I'm bipolar, which is technically different, but I'm Bipolar II which is kinda the same...whatever.  Anyway, that's mainly because that's the one I can talk most easily about.  I've been there.  I've experienced it enough to know what I'm talking about.  And honestly it's comfortable, in its way (see below).  I don't talk about being manic because it doesn't happen to me often, and when it does, it's scary and weird, so it's hard to talk about because I don't get myself at those times.
SO I've decided to try to expand my repertoire a bit.  (PS. repertoire is hard to spell).  And since I've had a stressful week that is just the lead-up to another stressful week (I get to work over 12 hours/shift twice this week!  Joy), I haven't got a lot of creative energy, so this is mostly links.  But they're important links, and good links, so you should read them and be amazed.

Recipe Post: Things You're Allowed to F* Up

So, this is a random recipe post, since I'm bored now with the feminist kick I've been on - which is not to say that I'm not a feminist, but we all need breaks.  I got bored with my Christian-postings kick, too.  This is why no one will ever follow my blog, because it's not coherent at all.  I'm also not super happy with my last post, for a multitude of reasons.  Ah well.  I'll get back to all these things, because they're important in my life.  For now, though: a post on recipes you're allowed to fuck up (learned from experience).  Because we all need permission, from time to time.

Backlash! Part Deux:Your husband doesn’t have to earn your respect

Your husband doesn’t have to earn your respect - This is a blog post by Matt Walsh, which you should read before you read this, as I'm going to just jump right in.  All in all, I don't think I disagree with Walsh, just that we're coming at this thing from two different perspectives, with two different agendas.  He sees a chicken, and I see and egg, and it's anyone's guess how either one got there in the first place...let me explain:

The "all men are fat, witless, oafs sitcoms" are often panned by feminists, because these same sitcoms tend to:
a) Show an unattractive man with a smoking hot wife (demonstrating the gulf between the requirements for physical attractiveness between men and women), and
b) Perpetuate outdated gender roles, because now not only is the wife responsible for taking care of the children and the house, she is now also expected to take care of her husband, who does nothing but bring home money (and occasionally do some yard-work).
So she's not an alpha-bride, but an overworked subservient bride who has minimal control over her own life and exercises it.  The media's (and, chicken/egg-ly, general culture's) shift toward portraying men as children that must be cared for is just another part of the ongoing backlash against feminism.  For all it seems like this attitude is elevating women, it's really just as degrading to the women as it is to the men - it's hardly different from the Victorian notion of the "Angel in the Household."
(Also, there are an increasing number of people arguing that childhood is a social construction designed to keep women from attaining equal status, because the care of our youth is Just Too Important.  I'm really skeptical of this one, since how you raise your kids is important, but then again, I also recognize that in other times and cultures, children are/have been given more responsibility [including jobs of their own], left to their own devices, raised by professional strangers, etc, and generally grown up to be normal, reasonable adults - and then again, today's kids have seen a 20 pt increase in IQ in just the past few years, probably due to the way we're paying more attention to them.  BUT ANYWAY...)

In Defense of Fandom

Alright so JK Rowling just came out and said that Hermione should have ended up with Harry.  This piece of news has caused the entire internet to collectively lose its shit.  All that shit it had?  Gone.

Now, there have been debates concerning whether anyone cares at all (since the books weren't about romance, but about heroism) and whether this is sort of anti-feminist (relegating Hermione to a "prize" [standard fantasy female treatment] and condemning her to a life playing second-fiddle to Mr. Back-from-the-dead-Chosen-One).  Fandom melts into a pool of, "I told you so!"s, "No!  It can't be!"s, and "Team Harry and Luna forever!"s (I'm on board with that last, but shhh...it's a secret).  Then we get the flare up of, "OMG fandoms, you don't own shit, you're so entitled! Saying you made things better is wrong and bad."

Historically, I've been on the side of the elitists.  The heavy lifting's been done by the author, and the universe wouldn't exist without them, so for someone to come along and expand that universe, in whatever fashion, and claim that they have done something creative seems incredibly lazy.  I was as appalled as everyone else over the 50 Shades phenomenon (I still am, actually, but for different reasons now).  However, after hearing more interviews with the author and seeing more of the fan universe of Harry Potter, I've begun to change my mind.  (As usual, the lead-up to this post has little to do with my actual thoughts, but I'm explaining how I got to this head-space - by picking fights with the internet people in the comments sections of articles like this.)

Working with Our Hands

I've had 3 separate people tell me this week that I should write more often. Not on this blog, specifically, just writing in general. So I'm starting here. I've got a ton of ideas, so I just have to pick one.

Let's go with one that's been on my mind a lot: 1 Thess 4:11-12. I'll quote it here:

"...and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."

This is a verse that comes up in the article I linked to in "Living the Life," and it's one I've been thinking about a lot lately. It's a verse that I think is particularly relevant in America today, because for all we like to proclaim (loudly) that we're being pushed out of the public sphere, we're really not. Yes, non-Christians are becoming more numerous and vocal, but to say that they're taking over is like a teenager literally believing that the playground equipment has shrunken since she was a child. Christians, in this country, still have POWER. Yet because we have power, and because we have always had it, we seem to think that we're entitled to it. "America is a Christian country!" we shout. We'll do whatever it takes to keep it that way.

BUT
It seems to me that increasingly, "whatever it takes" is meaning standing on corners with offensive signs, legislating other people's morality, shaming those we don't agree with, and generally making nuisances of ourselves. We think, "I'm doing God's work." Are we? Are we minding our own business? Are we working with our hands?