Why I Dance

I started learning to dance about two months ago. Not just any type of dance, mind you. I started to dance ballet—and I really enjoy it. It's been one of the most positive steps I've taken in recent years and I don't regret it despite the raised eyebrows and quizzical-critical comments I receive at times.

Why dance? And why ballet in particular?

Part of the answer is quite simple. I have realized that I am not getting any younger and that I need to consciously choose to remain active. I want to maintain my health at a level where I can continue to live a full life well into my later years. Given that my work has me sitting in front of a computer most of the day, I particularly need physical activity. I started running last fall and still run on occasion, but it has not become something I truly enjoy doing. Those pleasure-inducing endorphins or whatever it is that some runners experience have so far eluded me. I run because I know I need to, not because I enjoy it. More recently I tried doing Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) with my wife and son. We undertook this primarily to get our son involved in physical activity and to help him learn discipline, but for various reasons it didn't work out as well as we had hoped. I also struggled to reconcile my increasingly non-violent mindset with an activity that involves punching, hitting and kicking things (and people). Nor did I feel at home in the often testosterone-heave environment of the dojo. (Although I respect the owner of the dojo for his perspective and attitude.) So that fell by the wayside. I could have picked up yoga or pilates, but when I saw the sign outside the studio advertising ballet, I began to think that it might be fun to try something completely new.

The Semperoper Ballet, Dresden

Dancing ballet takes me way outside of my comfort zone. When I first considered joining the class I called the studio to inquire about it and the ballet teacher answered the phone. Her warm, positive encouragement was precisely what I needed to take the first step. Her continued encouragement and the welcoming atmosphere of the class helped me choose to continue. I am not by nature a big risk-taker. I don't like to put myself in positions where I feel awkward or uncomfortable. I don't like to try new things if I doubt my ability to succeed. I am not the most gifted person in the realm of physical coordination and strength, so undertaking something that requires both was a particularly bold move. However, in the past couple years I have put aside much of my innate hesitation and the fear that keeps me from expressing myself. Although not entirely free from such constraints, I don't worry as much as I used to about what others might think of me. This, combined with the positive support of my excellent teachers (I've now had a couple, both of them very good and very supportive), encouraged me to take this bold step.

Many guys give ballet a wide berth because they perceive it as an activity for girls and women. This didn't hinder me, because although it is a reality that more women dance ballet than men, men do are in fact an integral part of the ballet world. Nor do I pay much heed to traditional prescribed gender roles. Rather than causing me to hesitate about ballet, the fact that it crossed gender role boundaries—at least in the minds of many people—motivated me to do it. I'm not uncomfortable practicing with the women in the class. Nor am I bothered in the least to have women teaching. In fact I love the teachers I have—both of them great dancers and fantastic teachers. They and my fellow students have been a very welcoming, affirming community and I appreciate that very much.

This is definitely NOT me, although she is very beautifully posed.
(c) Suzanne Gonzalez

I dance ballet because I think it is an amazingly beautiful, graceful form of artistic expression. I would not have always said this. In the early years of our marriage my wife and I went to the ballet (The Nutcracker, I seem to recall) in Seattle and I was, quite honestly, rather bored by it. Later, while living in Russia, we had the opportunity to see several ballets at the world-famous Mariinskiy Theater in St. Petersburg. There I experienced the full power and beauty of ballet at its finest and I fell in love with it, although at the time I still would not have imagined myself trying to dance. I love the way that ballet combines beauty with control to powerfully express emotion. I am naturally quite reserved. I don't display emotional readily nor abundantly. I want to change this. I want to learn to express emotion more freely and ballet offers an avenue to do so, an avenue that combines this expression with beauty and grace.

I think I look more like this when dancing.
Actually, the hippo is probably better than I am,
but I'm learning!

I didn't know what to expect when I began ballet lessons. I certainly felt awkward and lacked confidence. I'm still pretty awkward, but I look forward to my lessons. They are very challenging and provide an incredible physical workout. At the same time they allow me to open up and express myself, releasing energy and emotion that are trapped inside. My current teacher Magda is particularly good at drawing us out, moving beyond simply learning the forms and positions to expressing ourselves through our movements. Sometimes I feel frustrated by my clumsiness or my inability to flex and stretch as much as I would like. But ballet has proven to be an excellent fit for me, a combination of physical activity with creative expression of beauty and grace that lifts my mind and body and refreshes me. I only wish I'd discovered it sooner.

A Legacy of Shame

Recently Danielle at From Two to One wrote a powerful article describing a visit she and her husband made to an old slave fort in the country of Ghana. I won't try to retell her story; you must read it yourself in her own words. Her tale has remained in my mind since I first read it, disturbing my efforts to ignore unpleasant truths. One detail that she shared sticks out particularly: that over the dungeon where the captured Africans were held, abused, tortured and dehumanized until they were sold and shipped away, the white masters of the fort and the territory had their chapel. Danielle writes:

As they [the white masters] sang worship songs to the Almighty God, the captives who had been beaten and raped and tortured shouted for mercy and rescue.

How, I ask myself, could people who call themselves by the name of Jesus Christ engage in such behavior? How could they so casually worship God while under their very feet were hundreds of humans whom they had abused, raped and tortured and whom they were going to sell into lives of slavery to serve the economic interests of other white Europeans?

I asked my wife this question and she gently reminded me that humans have a remarkable ability to justify their behavior, often by dehumanizing others. The white masters didn't feel any sense of guilt because to them the black Africans were not really fellow humans. They were fundamentally inferior, even inhuman. Therefore it was not immoral to treat them as beasts. Worse still, these people who considered themselves Christian in some sense of the word turned to the book of Christians, the Bible, for justification of their actions. This book which speaks of God's love for humanity, which describes the great lengths to which God has gone to restore humanity—all of humanity—to harmony with the divine as it was intended, was read in such a way as to support the dehumanization, abuse and degradation of people created by that same God.

The painful truth is that one can read the Bible in that manner.

In fact the Bible has often been used to justify the mistreatment of various groups of people throughout history. One can cite verses in which slavery appears to be normal and acceptable. One can cite verses in which God commands one group of people to annihilate entire cities and other groups of people. One can cite verses in which a woman who has been raped must marry her rapist. One can cite verses to argue that women are subordinate to men. The list could continue. What troubles me is that I so rarely hear anyone in my circles speak of how they are bothered by these verses or how they are interpreted to justify and support the exclusion or abuse of entire groups of people. In the past year I have found a growing number of voices who do speak openly of this, but I'm still not hearing it from the pulpit, at least not very often.

Instead I continue to hear voices that call for the submission of women as the biblical model. I hear voices that would have us deny equality to women, homosexuals, immigrants and other groups. These voices cite the Bible as their authority, often pointing to specific texts as support. How does one interact with a text that can be so freely used to support the subjugation of other members of God's creation? How is it that the message of redemption, liberation, restoration and renewal are so often drowned by the voices of exclusion and privilege? What am I to do with this book that has been used to condone some of the most inhumane behavior humans have committed?

I'm not sure we really have learned much since the time when the white British and Dutch masters ruled that slave fort in Ghana. Yes, we no longer buy and sell slaves openly as we did then, but we continue to tolerate slavery. We continue to use the Bible to justify our exclusion of women and others from full participation in society. We may not be just like those slave masters, but are we really so different? Am I really so different? How do I in my reading of the Bible and in living out my faith support either explicitly or implicitly the abuse of others? How do I need to think, read and act differently to stop participating in these acts of injustice?

I appreciate the many voices I have found that are speaking up openly and powerfully on these questions. Thank you Danielle, not only for this thought-provoking post but for your consistent advocacy for those who are marginalized, excluded, abused and cast off. If we are not to remain blissfully ignorant or complacent of the evils which our faith has been used to justify, we must learn to see, read and think differently. I would hate for my legacy to be looked at with the same scorn and shame that we now look back at those slave traders.

Will I Dance?

(c) 2013 Andrew Carmichael

This morning in worship we sang a song I really like. Unfortunately I rarely hear it anymore, since it has reached the ripe old age of 20 years. The chorus proclaims:

We will dance on the streets that are golden

The glorious bride and the great son of man

From every tongue and tribe and nation

will join in the son of the lamb.

The words and the melody stir something inside me that make me want to dance. But I don't, unless I'm in the privacy of my own home, preferably without even family members around.

On Friday evening I went to see a student of mine perform in the musical The Secret Garden. She did a great job, as did all the teenagers in the show. I'm impressed by the acting and singing talents of so many youth. I'm also somewhat envious, because when I was that age I didn't have the courage or self-confidence to try performing. I was terrified to get in front of people, afraid of looking like a fool. It's the same fear that keeps me from dancing when I hear a song that moves me. I'm afraid of what others will think of me.

I am afraid of failure.

Now in the middle years of my life, I look back with regret at opportunities I might have pursued, at talents and skills I might have developed, at fun I might have had, if only I had not been afraid. I cannot undo those past events, but I can choose whether to continue to live in fear. Even now I still want to cling to what seems to be safe. I don't want to speak out on issues, lest others reject or criticize me. I don't take big risks because I don't want to fail.

However, I am slowly—ever so slowly—becoming comfortable in my own skin. I'm growing bolder in my willingness to speak my mind, even if I expect that it will not receive a positive response. I'm trying new things, like singing with a praise team and running for exercise. I'm not up to trying out for a dramatic role yet, nor do I know of any opportunities to do so, but I see myself developing greater confidence and boldness. Even as I grow more willing to try new things, I'm also more comfortable accepting that there are some things I don't want to or cannot do. I don't have to be all things to all people, and I do best to operate in my strengths rather than bemoaning my weaknesses.

At the same time, I am learning to affirm more fully and genuinely the talents of others. I am letting go of the need to show that I'm smarter, better, stronger... whatever is-er. God has given each of us a unique set of gifts, abilities and interests and I can appreciate what others have, such as acting, even if I don't. I recognize more and more that everyone doesn't have to be, act, look, think, dress like me. Nor do I have to conform myself to what others do or think. Our society may compel that, and our churches even more so, but God doesn't. God created and embraces diversity. God celebrates it.

Perhaps one of these days I'll be so bold as to dance during worship, even if ever-so-slightly. That's a big step and I'm not sure I'm ready to take it. But I hope I will eventually. I want to embrace fully the identity I have in Christ, no longer worrying about the expectations or judgments of others, but celebrating the me that God has created me to be. For part of the great redemption story is that God sets us free from fears and bondage of all kinds. God liberates us to be all that we were meant to be, in all the colorful diversity, uniqueness and beauty that this entails. The song I quoted at the beginning speaks to this as well, reminding us that before the throne of God will dance women and men from all nations, languages and cultures. It promises to be a colorful celebration and I look forward to being a part of it, dancing with reckless abandonment to the glory of God.

Masculinity and Violence

In light of the recent tragedy in Connecticut we have seen the usual heated discussion about gun control flare up again. We've also seen some conversation about mental health issues. We need to talk about both of these topics and I certainly have my own thoughts on each of them. But we've seen very little conversation about another key issue: the role of violence in our society and how we socialize ourselves, especially boys, in such a way that violence becomes a natural, even expected, expression of masculinity.

Our culture promotes the idea that being a man means taking charge, getting what you want, exerting power and control. We see this in movies and on TV. I was just at the movie theater and was appalled though not surprised by the predominance of weapons and violence – largely led by men – in current and upcoming films. We see it particularly in video games, where it combines with blatantly misogynistic memes that denigrate and degrade women. (I'm looking forward to Anita Sarkeesian's video on this subject.) We tacitly and even explicitly affirm it in the messages we give to our boys and young men. We condone violence as a solution to problems and yet are surprised when people act violently outside of the ways we deem “acceptable.” As tragic as the killings in Connecticut are, they are only an extreme example of the fact that American culture has embraced and celebrates violence. Among nations with similar socio-economic levels, our country has one of if not the highest level of murder, the majority of which are carried out by men. Domestic violence plagues our society. Men abuse, mistreat and denigrate women and yet we all-too-quickly excuse such immoral behavior saying, “Boys will be boys.” Even worse, we turn the blame back onto the very victims of this abuse and violence, saying that they should have done X differently in order to not stimulate or provoke men. Our concept of masculinity and our devotion to inaccurate and outdated gender stereotypes contributes to the culture of violence in which we live.

Masculinity in our society has come to be defined largely as a rejection of anything deemed “effiminate.” This includes any expression of empathy, gentleness and compassion. We teach boys that physical weakness correlates to moral weakness and inferiority. Boys understand from an early age that the most physically attractive and strong boys are the most respected. Our sports culture reaffirms this not only during school years but into adulthood as well. We affirm certain colors, clothing, and behavioral traits as “feminine,” and we mock and deride any man or boy who should express a liking for or interest in them, once again reinforcing gender stereotypes that have no real basis.

We also train boys that they should expect to be in charge of their world. This has a reasonable side in so far as it promotes personal responsibility for our choices and actions. But in our society we go well beyond that and promote the idea that men are natural leaders while women are naturally passive followers. Unfortunately we hear this particularly in our churches, where we affirm the value of women as long as they remain in their “proper” spheres of activity and influence. But when a young man finds that he cannot control his environment or those around him, we express surprise that he lashes out in violence, seeking to destroy or harm that which he cannot control.

We need to change our whole perception of what it means to be a real man. We must teach our boys and men that expressing themselves through violence is not a healthy outlet, nor does it make them more “manly.” We should encourage them to embrace the value of empathy, gentleness and compassion. We must stop thinking of and referring to these qualities as “feminine” because this gender-labeling only promotes a false understanding of what manhood is all about, as well as continuing to denigrate anything associated with women as inferior. Caring for and valuing others are not qualities that we should expect only in women, nor are they inferior characteristics..

The apostle Paul writing to the Colossian church said:

As God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

He didn't write these words just to the women in the community. He wrote them to everyone. Compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience are manly. Well, actually they are neither manly nor womanly, they are godly characteristics. Let's move away from the whole idea that certain qualities as masculine or feminine and affirm those proclaim and uphold the worth and value of all humans.

We men need to radically rethink what it means to be a man. We need a new image and understanding of masculinity that doesn't promote exerting power and control over others, that doesn't denigrate compassion, kindness and humility, that doesn't glorify violence as the solution to problems. Our current limited view of masculinity fails to prepare men to treat others with respect and dignity. It robs us of our own worth and dignity as well by dictating that real men have to act in certain, stereotyped ways in order to not be perceived as “effiminate” as if that in and of itself were somehow bad.

Men, we need to have this conversation. Our response to a tragedy such as the one at Sandy Hook should not be limited just to questions of gun control or even mental health issues. Let's use this as an impetus to redefine manhood, letting go of power, control and violence and embracing humility, compassion and gentleness. Let's stop robbing ourselves of half (or more) of our humanity. Let's teach ourselves and our sons that there is a different, better way to live.

Women, you also have a key role in redefining masculinity. As mothers, wives, sisters, friends and in every other way in which you interact with men, you either affirm and perpetuate the dominant truncated view of masculinity, or you support those who strive to redefine it in healthier, more wholistic ways -- the unguys we might call them. We need you to tell men that manliness does not lie in physical strength, in control and dominance, in the suppression of all emotions other than anger. Many of you are doing this and I appreciate that. But too often the message of false masculinity is proclaimed and upheld not only by the men of our culture, but by the women as well. We must work together to change this.

I recommend this thought-provoking article as well as this one by Soraya Chemaly for further reflection on this topic. She also gives many links to other articles for further exploration of this important subject.

Equality is a Moral Issue

In our world today God's name and identity are still defaced. They are slandered by poverty, by injustice, by corruption, by disease, and by human exploitation and suffering. And God's name is defiled when his people willingly and apathetically accept the status quo, lacking the vision to lift up God's holiness, goodness and justice in a crumbling world.

                                                     Richard Stearns in The Hole in Our Gospel

I continue to be troubled by statements I heard earlier this year (about which I wrote previously) to the effect that inequality and poverty are simply the reality of our world which we must live with. In fact, the person who made these statements argued that in fact inequality is good, that we wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone is the same. But this confuses equality with being identical. Just because people are equal doesn't mean they are all the same. Equality recognizes and affirms distinctions in people, in their characters and personalities and in their gifts and abilities. But equality denies that those differences should allow one person to have authority or privilege over another simply because of a particular characteristic. For example, why should I have the right to utilize an excessive amount of the world's resources simply because I happen to have been born in the United States? Why should the fact that I happened to be born with an X and a Y chromosome make me acceptable for certain roles, while my wife and other friends who have two X chromosomes are not, by virtue of that fact? Obviously there are real differences between a person who lives in the United States and one who is raised in a poor country in the world, just as there are biological differences between men and women. But these differences do not justify inequality.

The fact that inequality does exist in the world doesn't mean we should be content with it or accept it as an unchangeable condition. We can choose how we will respond to the advantages and benefits given to us by virtue of our background. We can determine that, because we happened to be born in the United States and therefore had access to great opportunities and privileges not currently available ot the larger portion of the world's population, that we therefore have the right to take full advantage of that position, whether we consciously choose to exploit the rest of the world or not. We can say that we have a right to keep all our money and resources and use them for our own benefit (perhaps, if we feel generous, doling out a small portion to the needs of the world's masses). After all, inequality is just a fact of life and while we may feel sorry for the poor of the world, well, in the end that's just the way the world is.

I can choose as a white man that my biological sex and my skin color entitle me to privileged treatment. I can fight vigorously against any attempts to encroach on my power and privilege and complain vociferously whenever any portion of it is taken away from me. I can insist on my right to keep my hard-earned money and use it for the benefit of my children and those who are like me, preserving the privilege that I received for the next generation. I can maintain a wall between men and women that designates certain, limited environments as the acceptable spheres for women to conduct their lives. Sure, I affirm them as equal, as long as they don't try to actually live that out too fully. After all, inequality is just the way the world is.

Or maybe I could recognize that inequality reflects the fallen nature of this world. I could acknowledge that the power, privileges and benefits I have do not come to me so that I can keep them for myself, but so that I can surrender them. I can give away power and privilege. I can affirm the dignity and worth of others. I can invest the resources God has given me (however great or small they may be) so that others might have more opportunities and choices and over time experience greater equality.

I've been reading Richard Stearns' book The Hole in Our Gospel, which is a bit of a biography but even more a call for the church of Christ to embrace God's call to act on behalf of the poor, marginalized and oppressed of this world. In the book Stearns points to Paul's words to the Corinthian church in his second letter as a reminder (among many others in Scripture) that God cares deeply about equality—that in fact equality is “a justice issue or, stated more bluntly, a moral issue in which those of us who have plenty seem willing to allow others to have nothing.” In his letter Paul writes:

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there may be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.”

God calls us to work to eliminate inequality, using any benefit we may have to serve those who are in some manner disadvantaged. Stearns and Paul both address the issue of economic equality, but the issue of equality goes far beyond economic equality. If those of us who have privilege and power cling to it when we could and should be giving it away, we may some day find that the tables have turned on us despite our efforts and our own unwillingness to treat others as equals now will in that day come back to haunt us.

I acknowledge with great sadness that inequality does exist in our world. One would have to be blind not to see this. But I refuse to accept that this is simply the way things are, much less to affirm that somehow inequality is a good thing. Equality is, as Stearns states, a moral issue and as a disciple of Jesus Christ, who affirmed the dignity, worth and equality of all people, I want to work and speak for equality in the name of Christ. To do otherwise would be to deny the very name of the God I claim to serve.

What about purple?

Red or blue. Black or white. It seems these days that everything must be cast in dichotomy. We've lost the middle ground, the shades and variations that bring color and diversity to our world. We reduce people and issues to labels, either A or B, red or blue, black or white. I see this in so many areas. What has propelled us to cast nearly every aspect of life in two tones? We can't just blame it on the media, because we perpetuate it every time we post something on Facebook that takes one position and vehemently denounces the other as un-American or unbiblical or un-something. We bear the guilt for erasing the shades of color from our world.

I too am guilty of participating in this dichotomous system. Many years ago while working as an intern with the junior high youth at my church I prepared a talk (that's what we called the youth sermons) based around a song by Leslie (now Sam) Phillips entitled Black and White in a Grey World. I no longer have the text of my message, but I remember that the main point focused on how we as believers needed to see things as black and white, right or wrong, good or evil. This, I argued at the time, was how we needed to stand out in a world that had blurred everything into shades of grey.

Now, many years later, I see things quite differently. Yes, black and white do exist, but those shades of grey (or of purple, if we refer to the contrast as red/blue) define the world in which we live. I find now that so many issues cannot simply be reduced to right or wrong, black or white, red or blue. Even issues that once seemed clear cut to me I now recognize as having far more complexity and nuance to them. I may oppose abortion, but the issue cannot be reduced to whether it should be illegal or not. That won't solve any problems really, although it may make it seem like it has. Casting the issue simply in terms of pro-choice or pro-life limits us to two colors, ignoring the many facets of the discussion such as the factors that encourage or reduce abortion. But it's so much easier to slap a label on myself or others and have done with it.

The political sphere in our nation has come to be defined in this way. A person is either red or blue. They can't possibly fall somewhere in the middle, because that's too complex and cannot be easily summarized in a nice chart or color-coded map. Don't consider any colors outside of that duality. Green? Pink? Orange? Forget it, there's no room for that in our two-tone world.

Unfortunately I see this same mentality within the Church, or at least within the parts of it that I frequent. If one is a Christian, one must adopt position A and not B, position X and not Y. A person is either saved or a sinner. Women are either virgins or sluts. We've cut out any middle ground, which may be part of the reason that many people feel uncomfortable in the Church. There's no room for diversity and color. Apparently we fear the middle ground, because in the middle the answers are not clear cut and we can't quickly define people. We're uncomfortable when we don't know how to label those around us.

Looking back now at that Leslie Phillip's song, I see that in one verse she sang: 

It's not so easy finding answers in the shade.It takes some patience, takes some gritBut it's better than throwing all your colors in the streetWhat's life without color in it?

In the song she uses these words to argue for a black and white perspective, but as I consider the world now, I would understand these words differently. Yes, it is not easy finding answers in the shade. Living in a world that has diverse shades of meaning, a world in which there are not easy black and white answers to most questions presents great challenges. We cannot just cite some “authority” and have done with the matter. We must wrestle with the questions and the many nuances involved. We have to actually deal with real people and real situations which are inherently messy and complex. It does take patience and grit. But it is indeed better than throwing all our colors in the street, abandoning them in favor of a world where we can quickly label and define people as being one of two shades.

How do we move beyond a world limited to dichotomies? We need to stop limiting ourselves to sound bites and simplistic positions. Especially as followers of Christ we need to get to know the messy, colorful, complex world in which we live and stop seeing things as either black or white. Some issues can come down to that, but the vast majority of them not only allow for but demand greater diversity. We need to engage with people and hear their stories, rather than trumpeting little snippets of information that support our position. Even if we choose to define ourselves as black or white or red or blue, we can recognize that the issues are far more complex and that our perspective is always limited and imperfect. Let's stop reducing people and issues to labels and affirm the diversity that exists in society and creation. After all, what's life without color in it?

A Call to Men

How does our male-dominated, "man-up" oriented culture affect both men and women? This video from Tony Porter provides some great food for thought and discussion.

Living in Our Sweet Spot

Enjoyment appears at the boundary between boredom and anxiety, when the challenges are just balanced with the person's capacity to act.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

as cited by Susan Cain in her book Quiet, The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking.

After months of waiting my turn to read Susan Cain's book Quiet finally arrived this week. Our local library has only one copy and when I first reserved the book there were over 160 people in line in front of me. I guess I'd better complete it during my check-out period!

In her book Cain speaks out in defense of introverts and provides a number of interesting arguments and powerful conclusions related to the importance of introverts in society. My family contains four introverts of varying degrees. My wife and daughter are quite strong introverts. I drift more toward being an ambivert (one with characteristics of both intro- and extroversion), which may be where my son is as well. We all need significant amounts of solitude and our home might strike many as excessively quiet and dull. This used to trouble me. I felt that our home should somehow be more dynamic and exciting. We should “do” more.

Over the past few years I've become much more comfortable with being who we are. In chapter 5 of Cain's book I found affirmation for this. As reflected in the citation at the beginning of this entry, Cain argues that the ideal place for any person, extrovert or introvert, lies in a “sweet spot” where she or he experiences an optimal level of stimulation. This spot will differ from one person to another, and probably differs for most individuals at different times of the day or week or season of life. My son needs a higher level of stimulation than anyone else in our family, which leads at times to conflict as he seeks to interact verbally with the rest of us more than we desire. I also have a higher stimulation level than my wife and daughter, so when I press my wife to do an activity that surpasses her preferred level, she naturally feels uncomfortable or reluctant to engage, although sometimes she will for the sake of relationship.

In order to find the optimal level of energy and satisfaction, Cain encourages her readers to identify their “sweet spots” and build their environment as much as possible in such a way as to achieve that. I like this idea and can see where I have taken some steps in this direction even before reading her book. I need a quiet place to work, free from major distractions. Thankfully I have been able to create such a place. I also need a certain level of social interaction though. Since it would overwhelm my wife to invite people to the house as often as I might prefer, I must look for other ways of social interaction. We both prefer smaller social settings though, so this works to our advantage. We're very happy to have a small group of friends to our house and tend to avoid large social gatherings, even when we may know a number of people there.

A challenge comes because we all (or at least most of us) live in a social framework and do not have complete control of our environment. We may not have the ability to set up our workspace according to our own preferences. We may be married to someone with a strongly different temperament in terms of introversion and extroversion. Reality compels us to find compromises, but knowing one's personal preferences helps even in such situations. If we don't know what environment we most prefer, we can't seek to make the best allowance for our needs that a given situation allows.

Cain actually touches on the question of how introverts fit within evangelical church culture, with the conclusion that most American evangelical churches don't really seek to accommodate them. Often our churches push us to live as extroverts, to be engaging in social outreach, to be exhuberantly outgoing, to be sharing the Gospel as often as possible. For some people this works very well, but for introverts, no so much. I would like to see our churches making more room for introverts to live their faith in ways consistent with their personalities. This may mean promoting quiet reflection. It means allowing people to find their niche and serve in their strengths, rather than pushing everyone to be an outgoing evangelist. Too often I have found myself asked to fill a role simply because the role needed filled and not because it suited my personality and strengths. I am thankful that our current worship community, while encouraging and inviting people to be engaged, does not adopt a one-size-fits-all model of ministry.

I recognize that there are times at which all of us must stretch ourselves and go beyond our comfort zones. We cannot always be in our “sweet spots.” Sometimes by stretching ourselves we may discover new interests and talents, or find areas that we would like to expand our skills in. Sometimes in the discomfort God may show us aspects of our character that need refining. But on the whole I think we all serve best when we can serve out of the character God has placed in us, whether we are extroverts or introverts, whether we are gifted at construction work or talented in writing and drawing. I am embracing more fully the unique balance of intro- and extroversion that God created in me and learning to live from that. I'm finding it to be a much healthier and happier place.

You can hear some of Cain's key conclusions in this TED video:

The Gospel of True Colors

While driving the car the other day I heard a song on the radio that brought back fond memories: True Colors by Cyndi Lauper. I'm sure to date myself by saying that I listened to this song back in my high school days. I'm not a big fan of Cyndi Lauper in general, but this song and her hit Time After Time resonated with me then and continue to do so to this day whenever I hear them. I wonder if the song True Colors doesn't contain important echoes of the gospel.

You with the sad eyes

Don't be discouraged

Oh I realize

It's hard to take courage

In a world full of people

You can lose sight of it all

And the darkness inside you

Can make you feel so small.

But I see your true colors shining through

I see your true colors

And that's why I love you

So don't be afraid to let them show

Your true colors

True colors

Are beautiful like a rainbow.

I can hear Jesus singing this to me, or to anyone else who finds themselves lost in a sea of voices that tells them how worthless and insignificant they are. I can see Jesus speaking into a person's darkness and showing them their true worth. This is a message of redemption and hope. When Jesus draws out our true colors, we shine like rainbows.

True Colors reminds me of another song, this one a contemporary hit: Firework by Katy Perry. Caris Adel drew an intriguing parallel between this song and the beautitudes which drew my attention to it. Listening to it carefully with Adel's analogy in mind, I recognized that Firework speaks a similar message. Perry invites her listeners to let the light within them shine out and illuminate the darkness. We need not live our lives in shame, regret, humiliation and fear. The world tells us every day how worthless we are, but the message of the gospel speaks a different story.

Do you ever feel like a plastic bag,

drifting through the wind, wanting to start again?

 Do you ever feel, feel so paper thin,

Like a house of cards, one blow from caving in?

Do you ever feel already buried deep,

Six feet under screams but no one seems to hear a thing?

Do you know that there's still a chance for you,

'Cause there's a spark in you?

You just gotta ignite the light and let it shine

Just own the night like the 4th of July.

'Cause baby you're a firework

Come on, show 'em what you're worth

Even as I draw connections between these two songs and the gospel message and I can hear objections being raised. I can hear them because they come from within myself. I grew up primarily in a Presbyterian environment and therefore have a strong Calvinist background to my theology. That Calvinist background emphasizes the total depravity of humans. In the interest of affirming the majesty and sovereignty of God, Calvinism denigrates the worth of human beings. The extent to which it does so varies on the shade of Calvinism, but the underlying message that comes out often in many churches speaks of the inherent worthlessness of humans. God doesn't need us. We can do nothing apart from him. We should be thankful that God doesn't squash us like an annoying pest that one finds crawling across the living room carpet. 

I acknowledge that Calvinism contains an element of truth. But too often because of its emphasis people who are already broken, crushed and reminded regularly by the world of their worthlessness hear a similar message from within the community of Christian faith. In the interest of helping people recognize their sinfulness we actually end up breaking them down even further. Some of us (perhaps all of us) need to be broken down, but that is the work of God, not the message that needs to come first from the lips of God's followers. To a person already feeling worthless, a message that proclaims his or her absolute depravity may not offer a lot of hope.

Thankfully Calvinism is not the whole picture. The Church, especially some branches of it (I think in particular of the Orthodox churches), have historically affirmed the divine element within each of us. We are, after all, created in the image of God (and by all I mean all, not just white men or even men as a whole, or any other particular subset of humanity). Yes, we suffer the effects of turning away from God in rebellion. Yes, we cannot regain that state through our own effort. But that does not, as I now understand it theologically, mean that the divine spark within us has been fully extinguished. We are still God's children and still retain the stamp of our creator in our innermost beings. 

With that perspective, the message I draw out of True Colors and Firework does speak truth. It calls us, if I dare say it, with the voice of Jesus to embrace who we were created to be, to turn in faith and allow Jesus to ignite that divine spark within us so that we radiate with the brilliant rainbow of colors that he stirs within us. For we are valuable and precious in his sight, worth more than any of us can ever begin to imagine. What if we focused first on this message and allowed God then to work in each person's life to illuminate and cleanse those elements that need to be transformed? 

Like any analogy, this one can be overstated. I don't claim that True Colors nor Firework proclaims the fullness of the gospel message. But I do think that they both resonate with an important element of that message. Now when I hear these songs that's the message they speak to me. I do not deny that humans are sinful. That fact is painfully apparent every day. I don't claim that some humans have not reached such a point in their brokenness and fallenness that the divine element within them seems impossible to see, much less to ignite. Simply because we have the divine spark still within us doesn't mean we live or act in accordance with it. Many people, aware of their divine nature or not, choose to live in open and clear rebellion against it, doing things that harm themselves and others. This does not mean that they are without hope. If they were, Jesus would have nothing to offer them, which would mean that some people are beyond the salvation of Jesus. I don't believe that. We are all created in the image of God and retain that stamp of our creator, but we also need the healing, restoring hand of that creator to be renewed in the fullness of that image.

Ideal Men or Real Men?

There is a lot of healthy conversation going on about how women are portrayed in the media, much of it spearheaded by the Miss Representation campaign. My perspective is being reshaped as I educate myself and look more critically at films, television shows, books and magazines.


But, some may say, what about men? Aren't we being overlooked in all this? Well, not really. Men are still the ones who hold power and who determine most of what the media portrays. The attitude of men toward women is a key part of the problem, so we also need to be part of the solution by changing the way we view and depict women and by speaking out against biased, inaccurate and prejudical portrayals of women wherever we find them.


Another aspect of the problem, one that is less addressed, is the way men are depicted in media. We too suffer from unrealistic and prejudical images of what it means to be a man. Take a moment and watch this video:





I don't know about you, but I can relate to what she is saying. I certainly don't fit the "ideal" male image. Thankfully I have a wife who loves me despite my lack of ripped muscles and stunningly handsome good looks. I can't say that I've thought too much about this, but I do know that I have spent most of my life feeling like I wasn't "man" enough. I'm not particularly gifted athletically. I'm pretty inept with most construction tools. I'm not physically strong. So when society keeps telling me through various channels that this is what it means to be a "real" man, I see myself as a failure. Unfortunately the Church hasn't done me any favors in this area either. They may add to the categories, such as a "real" man has to be an ideal husband and father, but so much of the chatter coming out of the so-called biblical manhood camp simply reiterates the message of the world in defining manliness.


As I reach mid-life I am slowly coming to accept myself for the man that I am. I'm not going to measure up to the ideal male image pushed on me by our culture. As we work to change the way we view and portray women, we would do well to also reimage manhood so that it allows for a much broader picture, one that accurately reflects the vast majority of real men.


What do you think?

No Longer Ashamed

On Thursday I watched in distress as “my” team, the German national football team, went down in agonizing defeat to the Italians in the UEFA Euro 2012 tournament. Although disappointed, I managed to make it through the remainder of the day and the following day without suffering severe emotional distress. There was a time when this would not have been the case – when a loss by a team I supported would make me irritable and cross for a day or more. Not only did seeing my team lose used to cause me anguish, I really hated the stigma of having sided with a loser. I didn't want to have to face even casual ribbing at the hands of those who supported the winning side. So often I would keep any allegiances I had to myself. That way I could at least avoid any negative treatment from those on “the other side.”

This behaviour extended not only to sports, but to most areas of life. For most of my life I have hesitated to openly take stands on issues for fear that I might offend someone. I want people to like me and I have always worried that in expressing an opinion someone disagrees with I will also incur their rejection of me as a person. I also feared committing myself to a cause or idea lest in the end it should fail to “win,” in whatever sense that might be understood. I have kept my opinions to myself in order that I would be likeable and in order to avoid conflict with others. Not any more.

I do not want to remain silent any longer. I do not want to live in fear of what others might think of me. I do not want to avoid expressing opinions and supporting people and causes because doing so might cause someone else offense. Yes, I want to be tactful and civil in my discourse, but I am learning to overcome my fear of rejection. As I reach midlife I am finally understanding that my identity and my worth do not rest in what others think of me. I do not require their approval. Some issues and causes are worth standing up for; too important for me to remain silent. I'm learning to listen to the voices of those outside the circles of power. I'm raising my voice in concert with those whose voices have been silenced far too long. I'm not the solution. I'm not a superhero who is going to single-handedly solve all the world's problems. But I can take a stand for those things I believe in and let myself be counted – even if it makes me unpopular in certain circles, even if it means I will be misunderstood and possibly even rejected.

Of course this isn't really about football or any other sport – although I apply it there as well in a willingness to affiliate myself with particular teams or athletes that I admire, regardless of their stature in others' eyes. Far more importantly it applies to speaking out and acting against injustice. For me it means standing up for the equality and dignity of women and others who have been silenced by society for too long. It means speaking out in favor of sustainable living and taking care of the creation God gave us. It means taking a stand on the side of immigrants and seeing them as fellow humans, and affirming actions that support and enhance the well-being of society's weakest and poorest. It means raising my questions about theology and Scripture and a host of issues related to the Church, no longer quietly acquiescing to the viewpoints of those around me.

I guess I've become an activist of sorts. I will use my voice and my words to advocate for those things I believe in, regardless of how others respond. I don't want to remain silent and in fear any longer. I don't want to live for the approval of others. I've done that for too long.

I'm okay with Germany's loss on Thursday. I'm learning to take a stand and not be ashamed.

A Divine Wretch

In the past year I've experienced more days of discouragement and depression than of encouragement and joy. I've questioned my purpose in life and wondered whether I had accomplished anything of value in my work of the last ten years. I doubted whether I had anything worth offering to God and the world. It's been a dark time, the most difficult period I have experienced in all my years of life.


Ever so slowly I am emerging from that darkness, finding renewed focus and purpose in life and, along with that, reinvigorated joy and passion. This week I started teaching in a summer program focused on phonetics and language and culture learning skills for people preparing to work in cross-cultural situations. The course is conducted virtually, so I do not have the opportunity to interact in person with my students. This brings with it definite challenges, although it also allows me to tailor my instruction to the specific needs and situation of each individual better than I could in a classroom setting. After a day spent in back-to-back Skype sessions I felt worn out by evening, but at the same time I was wonderfully invigorated. I love teaching. I love working with the students. I enjoy using the talents and skills I have along with the experienced I have gained living and working cross-culturally for the past ten years. I take delight in knowing that through my teaching I can help others enter their new roles better prepared and therefore experience greater success and deeper satisfaction in their lives and work. I believe that my small role in teaching them can help them to thrive in their cross-cultural contexts.


When I go through dark periods such as I have experienced over the past year, my theological background becomes a weight that adds to the downward spiral. I was raised in a theological tradition that emphasizes the depravity of humans. Confronted with personal questions about my value and worth, I hear the voices that remind me that of course I have no value. I am worthless. I am a dirty rotten sinner who deserves nothing other than God's scorn and wrath. This view emphasizes my worthlessness in order to increase the focus on God's holiness, grace and mercy and the unique act of Jesus in redeeming someone like me. As the classic hymn says: “Amazing grace how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me.”  When I'm doubting my own worth, I don't really need to be reminded of my wretchedness. But that's the message that most often repeats in my mind, because I have heard it so often in sermons and read it in books.


At one point in my life I would have said that this view of humanity, the emphasis on our fallenness, was the only biblical doctrine of humanity. Any other perspective, and I seldom heard of any, obviously failed to appreciate the gravity of The Fall and therefore cheapened God's grace and holiness. Yet, as I've read more widely in theology, interacted more with people from different christian and non-christian backgrounds and reflected on the Scriptures in light of my own experience, I see that the message of human worthlessness isn't the only message in the Book. There's a strong theme of our inherent worth as children of God, as people that God created in their image. While some theological viewpoints see only the fallenness of humanity, others choose to emphasize the divine element that remains within us. Yes, this spark needs the power of God in the resurrection of Jesus, working in our lives through the Holy Spirit, to fully flame again, but the spark has not been fully extinguished. Although fallen, we are still divine beings, with inestimable value and worth because of who we resemble and to whom we belong. Another song, of which I remember very little, quoted God as saying “This one is born in Zion. Make no mistake, this one is mine.”


Both of these perspectives coexist in Scripture. We ignore one or the other at our own peril. Focus too strongly on the divine and we may come to think that we don't need redemption and transformation. But focus too strongly on the fallenness and we may come to believe that we are so worthless that God couldn't possibly be interested in us. Given my inclination to self-deprecation, I need to be reminded of my worth as God's child. I don't need to keep being told how worthless I am. I've got that one figured out pretty well, thank you. I am learning to embrace who I am in Jesus, to celebrate the me that God has created, and whom God is in the process of renewing and transforming, not because the base model is inherently deficient, but God wants to bring me to that glorious state in which I was originally conceived and created. I am fallen, redeemed and divine all at the same time. I am a divine wretch.


Kathy Escobar wrote a great piece on this topic a while back. I encourage you to read it.

Woman Up!

Among all the idiomatic phrases regularly used in American English, two in particular irritate me beyond measure: “Man up” and phrases or sentences related to “having balls.”


“Man up” – what does this mean anyway? I hear people use it when they want to challenge a man (or even at times a woman) to be decisive, to take action or control of a situation. Perhaps it implies having courage or boldness. But what do any of these have to do with being a man? More specifically, what do they have to do with being a man as opposed to being a woman? Can women not be decisive, take action or demonstrate leadership in a given situation? Do women lack the ability to show courage or boldness? Or do we believe that, by doing so, they are really acting more as men? Are these qualities really more “masculine” or “manly?” And if you affirm them as such, does that somehow make them more desirable or laudable than a quality or characteristic that you would label as “feminine?”


The phrase “to have (or show) balls,” used either as a description of a person or as an admonishment, comes from the same mindset. Men have balls. Men should be strong, courageous, aggressive or assertive, confident. Therefore men who lack these qualities lack balls and need to grow some (yes, that expression gets used too). Women who demonstrate these qualities are displaying masculine characteristics. Whether that is good or bad depends on your view of what women should be like. But she is certainly not being a “lady.” She's acting like a man. At least that is what our use of these expressions implies.


Our very use of language indicates that we view certain qualities as being more male and therefore more desirable. We affirm certain characteristics in men and use them to define manliness. At the same time we either devalue such qualities in women or, if we allow women to display them, we view her as being less feminine and more masculine. But the character traits we have in mind do not depend on gender. They do not define us as men or women, nor should they. Women are fully as capable of showing courage, confidence and leadership as men. Often they do it better, but the fact is that these qualities vary from person to person regardless of gender. 


Unfortunately particular groups and leaders within the Church seem intent on exhorting men to be more masculine, as they define the term. Godly men must “reject passivity” and develop the following characteristics, (borrowed from Karl Wheeler's challenging blog post):

• a strong backbone—a sense of moral conviction
• courage in the face of opposition
• the ability to lead by setting a strong example of moral purity and devotion to Christ
• taking the initiative in matters of faith
• a servant's heart (willing to do some “women's work”)
• a desire to rescue women

But, as Wheeler points out, we see these same qualities in many godly women. The problem is not with the qualities—it is with the idea that these qualities are somehow “masculine” and should define a godly man. They can't define godly women, who are told that their image of godliness is to be passive, meek, submissive, gentle and kind. Never mind that these same qualities can and should be demonstrated by godly men. 


When I read Colossians 3:12 – As God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience – I don't see any indication that these are directed only at women, although these character traits would likely be viewed more as “feminine” than masculine. Despite this, I've never heard anyone admonish someone to “show some ovaries” (to again borrow from Wheeler), although if we affirm the idea of some qualities being more masculine and others more feminine, we should do exactly that if we want to encourage men to be more godly. In fact, I think these “feminine” qualities fit far more closely to the image of godliness that we see in Jesus than any of the ideal “manly” qualities that are more often pushed on men. Maybe we should start exhorting one another to “show some ovaries” or to “woman up.” We could do far worse. 

Acceptance

In his book Cross-Cultural Connections author Duane Elmer relates a statement he once heard from a Bible teacher. That man said: “What John 3:16 is to the non-Christian, Romans 15:7 is to the Christian.” Elmer has the humility to admit that despite his years of Bible school and seminary, he could not recall what Romans 15:7 says, although at the time of the incident he sort of bluffed his way through a response. Reading the story in Elmer's book, I had to admit the same.


Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.


Simple, yet if we reflect on the implications, very profound and very challenging. In order to understand this verse, we must understand the meaning of acceptance. Elmer offers this definition:


Acceptance is the ability to communicate value, regard, worth and respect to others. It is the ability to make people feel significant, honored and esteemed.


Elmer speaks of acceptance in the context of learning to relate cross-culturally. I concur with him on this, but I would take it further. (To be fair to Elmer, he probably would as well outside of the context of a book specifically focused on cross-cultural interaction.) Paul doesn't tell us to accept only certain people. He doesn't say we should only accept those who are like us, with whom we feel comfortable. He states that we are to accept one another, without qualification. In the context of the surrounding verses and chapters in the letter to the Romans, Elmer considers that Paul argues for the Romans to demonstrate acceptance of one another as the key to overcoming cultural (and other) differences that divided their community. Acceptance means that we proactively, intentionally extend regard, worth, and respect to all people, including those whom we'd rather ignore, shun or worse.


Such acceptance can only be shown to others when we recognize and believe with all our hearts in the inherent value and dignity of each person. Elmer states it very well: “We must show acceptance toward all people, because deeply rooted in the soul of every person is dignity. God himself bestowed dignity upon every human being when he shared his image with us.” If we do not believe in the inherent dignity of each person, we will not be able to accept her or him. We will set ourselves or some other person or group up as the ideal standard by which all others must be measured. Those who fall short of that measurement we consider to be beneath us, to be unworthy, to have little or no dignity. And we treat them accordingly.


Looking around me – and more importantly looking inside myself – I see that a great lack of acceptance. I see us dividing society into groups, into those who are “in” and those who are “out,” those who are accepted and those who are rejected. The exact definition of who is in or out depends on the particular person or group drawing the boundaries. But we all draw boundaries. And Christ came to erase those boundaries. Jesus came to inaugurate a kingdom in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. Does this mean that those distinctions cease to exist, that we all become one large mass, without any kind of differences? Not at all. Americans and Chinese and Germans and Indians and every other culture still has its distinctions. Men and women still differ (although as some have pointed out, not nearly as much as we often are led to believe). But these distinctions do not indicate worth, value or dignity. They do not define who is in and who is out, who is acceptable and who is unacceptable, who can fill certain roles and who cannot. 


We are called to accept one another first of all because we have all been accepted by God. In addition, we must accept one another because each one of us has inherent worth, dignity, and value because we are created in God's image. No differences we have can outweigh those two factors.


In light of this, I'm thinking about my own behaviour. I'm evaluating how I treat others and where I have drawn boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. I want to choose to extend acceptance, even to people I deeply disagree with (acceptance doesn't mean the disagreements will or even should disappear), recognizing that even those whom I am most strongly inclined to reject possess the same fundamental value and dignity that I do. As a mental exercise it's not so hard. But the application...

Movies and Womens' Identity

A recent international business trip allowed me quite a bit of time for movie watching. These days the better airlines have personal entertainment centers for each seat, even in economy class. Last week I wrote about one of the movies I watched which I really enjoyed – In Time. On my homeward-bound trip the other day I didn't watch very much. The flight schedule left me quite tired and I spent as much time as I could trying to rest. While waiting on the runway in Chicago and then during the flight to Denver I did catch a film called Monte Carlo. As with In Time, I hadn't heard much about this film or read any prior reviews, nor did I have my teenage daughter's opinion to guide me. But the film looked light and fluffy, just about what my brain needed after many, many hours of travel. I also wanted to see what the director would do with a movie that featured three women in the lead roles.


Before I continue, I should make a disclaimer about my skills as a movie critic. Basically, I'm not, at least not a particularly profound one. So I'm not going to dwell a lot on the story line, the cinematography or many of the other details that a film reviewer might consider. The film follows three young women on their trip of a lifetime to Paris. One has just graduated from high school, the second is her new sister through the remarriage of her mother, and the third her best friend from work. All are from an unspecified small town in Texas. After they arrive in Paris, through a series of mishaps and fortuitous circumstances these young women find themselves traveling to Monte Carlo and living the life of the rich and famous. In the end, their false front is revealed, but along the way the three each learn something about themselves and what true happiness means to each one.


The film is enjoyable as long as one doesn't expect too much of it, which no one should have. One of the film's positive virtues is that it speaks at least somewhat of the hollow emptiness of wealth and fame. However a key aspect of the film left me quite dissatisfied. For all three of these young women finding her identity and her happiness involves, in fact I would say requires, her finding a man. The film essentially says to teenage girls (whom I imagine were the primary intended audience) that they cannot be truly complete and happy without “Mr. Right.” Even though the film is fairly generous in terms of who “Mr. Right” might be, it doesn't portray any alternative scenario for bliss. The not-so-subtle message is that until you find that right man, you as a woman will not be fully satisfied in life. One reviewer on  the Rotten Tomatoes website stated it this way:


“Harmless enough to a point...but the idea that girls should aspire to little more than acquiring a boyfriend, a home or a brand-new pair of Blahniks will be desperately depressing for any parents dragged along.”  


Unfortunately I don't know that this reviewer accurately predicts the reason for the depression most parents might feel on viewing such a film. We have been so saturated with the idea that a young woman's fulfillment lies in finding her man, that most people won't even stop to reflect on this fundamental theme. We don't even really question it. Certainly the filmmakers didn't. In fact they recognized it as a sure way to win an audience.


Some might say that I'm asking the film to be something it never intended. But if we never expect more of our movies, we'll never be given anything more. Hollywood often retreats into claims that it just gives audiences what they want and stubbornly resists calls to offer different portrayals of life. The standard pablum coming from Hollywood offers women and men primarily tired and trite cliches of manhood and womanhood. Young women in particular are rarely offered positive models of what they could become. Miss Representation has focused their energy against changing this in the media, not only in films but across the board. It doesn't even require huge steps. In this film couldn't the director and writers have offered any alternative outcome for even one of the three young women, and outcome in which she found her way in life without needing a man beside her?


I am not arguing that women and men don't need one another. In fact I believe quite the opposite. Women and men need each other very much, but not to fulfill and confirm their identities. We need each other in order to see the world in broader color and greater depth, among other reasons. But we don't need each other in order to be complete individuals. Men generally do not receive the same pressure in this regard as women (except maybe in the Church), so when I see movies such as Monte Carlo I remember the phrase falsely attributed to Gloria Steinem: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” I hope that at least I can communicate to my daughter that her identity and purpose rest in something greater than simply finding “Mr. Right.”