Debate This!

This week our subject is debate...

Jen's take:

Recently I started a fan page for myself on Facebook.  (Ok, so it's a debate page, but as I'm a big fan of my debates and discussions and deep thoughts, I thought it appropriate.)  Unfortunately, my reasoning was not just me being a big fan of myself.  My debates and discussions get heated because people take things personally, so I decided to take a step back and make a separate page to avoid some of that heat. 

        I very clearly posted the rules for debating on the sidebar on my page (which seems to have conveniently disappeared, but I digress).  I very clearly stated that name calling by anyone to anyone was not and never would be appropriate.  It didn't take long before some poor soul decided my conservative views were bigoted, and called me a bigot.  It brought me no sorrow to select the box next to her name that said "ban permanently."

        But that got me thinking. What, exactly, IS a debate?  My personal Facebook page, up until now, has been known as a place wherein deep discussions/debates take place on a daily basis.  In the past, though, I have angered people by, in their words, "pressing" the issue after they have spoken their piece. This seems odd, to me.  I always have thought the point of a debate was to win.  As in, you say your side, I say my side, and someone presents the best evidence/statistics/facts/reasoning and wins.  Is that not what a debate is? Perhaps I'm clueless in this regard.  Enlighten me, if so.

        In any case, here is how I debate and/or discuss, on my debate/discussion page:

        I post a topic, link, or question that I find interesting.  Some of these are suggested to me by my friends; some are based on conversations I've seen on other pages or message boards; some are just things that I think people will find controversial (although, admittedly, people seem to find controversy in areas I never thought possible).  When the topic, link, or discussion is posted, it's open season on whatever it is.  Have at it. Argue, fight, present your side, present your facts, do whatever it takes.  But do NOT call me, or anyone else, a bigot, a hater, a racist, or any other host of names. That's not fair fighting.  But know this: if you present your side, I will then continue presenting my side.  That's how it *works*.  That's what a debate or a discussion is.  If I "press the issue", this does not make me "always having to be right" or any such thing.  It's called a rebuttal.  Look up the word, if you'd like.

        I've also, often, been accused of "always thinking my opinion is the right one".  Um, duh? Does anyone really espouse an opinion about something that they *don't* believe to be true? What would be the point of that? I'm asking, honestly. (I believe this was referred to as "outlandish bullshit" by one of my friends/readers, and "egocentrism" by someone else.)  Though I CAN successfully argue "the other side" of something I feel strongly about, I don't unless I'm telling you.  Repeat: I will flat out tell you if I'm arguing a side I don't agree with.  Anything else…well, what you see is what you get.  For shame!  I am egocentric enough to actually believe that the opinions I hold are correct.  Really, this flabbergasts me.

        So, really, I have one rule for my debates/discussions: no. name. calling.  It's very simple.  Name calling is a pathetic way to argue.  If you are frustrated with the person's argument, find another way to get your point across. Don't just assume their argument is judgemental, bigoted, ignorant, or full of hate. 

        Perhaps they just believe differently than you do. Last I checked, that was not a crime.

Paige's Take:

Debate or attack?

(Borrowed from the comments guidelines of PajamasMedia.com)

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic. 

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

And, a brief definition (dictionary.com):

ad ho·mi·nem

–adjective

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

I have been accused of not being willing to accept debate on topics.  I have been charged with being hateful, fearful, and ignorant, a bigot, extremist and a list of other names.   The difference between a bar fight and a debate is how the subjects are discussed (and the proper usage of the beer bottle as a weapon).  What gets it all in a twist is that people don’t know or remember how to debate. 

I did not take debate in High School or college; I was however in speech classes and had to give a few extemporaneous (spontaneous) speeches.  I think I’m fairly good at debating topics (and have been told so by a few people, as well as my own opinion) and feel that when debating I attempt to be fair, avoid name-calling and stay on subject.  However, that is not the case with most debates I have been involved in lately. 

“Debate” is defined (Wikipedia) as a ‘formal method of interactive and representational argument’.  As with most speaking styles, there are rules or guidelines that should be followed to avoid intimidation.  Debate is not conversion, nor is it bullying the other person(s) into retreating or agreement.  Debate is a way to present a factual and evidential argument for or against a specific subject. 

Debate should be about two (or more) adults discussing a subject – not necessarily with the intent of converting the other – with opinions, evidence and facts.  Emotions are not involved, nor appreciated.  Name-calling (ad-hominem attacks) is in bad form and changes the debate into a contest (read: “pissing match”).

Debate is not bashing the other person with personal comments (or attacks), insulting them in order to change the subject or create hurt feelings.  Opinion is an important aspect of a debate; again, the point is not to necessarily change the other person’s opinion.  There is a fair exchange of ideas, information, facts, exhibits and evidence.  Although the proof used may appear biased to the outlook of one debater; a good debate should include corroboration as well as challenges to the opinion of the others involved.

For instance, if we are debating that the most efficient cars on the road are the Toyota Prius; the persons that believe this to be true could offer up EPA statistics and other studies that have been done to prove the point.  However, they could also present the facts that even though the cars are more fuel efficient, the cost to purchase new, keep repaired and (in some cases) charged might override the actual efficiency.  It is also not a car to drag the soccer team in, or your trailer or boat behind.  Some might find the negative attention disloyal to the cause; however in the search for unbiased opinion, the information would be ultimately correct in both instances.

On the other hand the owner of an older, paid-for SUV maintains the need for the vehicle because of lifestyle and employment.  With adequate seating and cargo room, the vehicle is more appropriately suited for hauling loads of children, groceries, camping gear or vacation travel (not to mention towing a boat or a trailer).  The day-to-day use of the vehicle requires that the tank be filled only once each month (instead of weekly), and maintenance is minimal if kept up.  Receipts for fuel and maintenance, matched against the safety record of the vehicle (from the EPA or other institution), would satisfy the evidence portion of the question. 

To argue the point that because one owner drives a “gas-guzzling SUV, they must care less about the environment and must therefore be a hateful and inconsiderate bigot” is merely mud-slinging and not addressing the point of the discussion; which is (might I remind you) efficiency.

Neither party is right or wrong in their beliefs that their vehicle is the safest and most efficient vehicle for their lifestyle.  The Prius owner has a lifestyle that doesn’t demand a large amount of space; probably commutes to work at a distance and takes few camping trips or drives that require the room of a larger SUV.  This does not make the Prius owner a better human being, or a more careful steward of the planet.  It also doesn’t make the Suburban owner a “gun-toting, extremist militia member”.

Life isn’t Jr. High and not every battle needs to be fought to win.  Sometimes there is more than one way to peel an orange; and they might just both be right.  Quit with the useless personal attacks and get on to making a stand for your opinions.  You don’t have to WIN to be correct.

Episode 4: Facebook. Love It, Hate it, or Love to Hate It?

Sorry for the long delay between episodes. One of us has been on the injured reserve list. Regardless. This week we are discussing one of our favorite topics: Facebook.

PAIGE'S TAKE

Why Facebook?

I don’t exactly remember when I got on Facebook, but it’s my Cousin Lisa’s fault that I started the descent into madness. She posted photos on the site and sent me a link. Of course I had to ‘join’ to view the photos of my cousins; and so began the tale of Paige and the social networking site.

At first I thought it would be an awesome way to share photos of our life: Our newly landscaped backyard & deck, the family trip to Disneyland, miscellaneous family photos in one spot. It was a bit addicting and motivating to scan the “old” photos (you know the ones on PAPER) and transfer the digital ones into neat little photo albums by category or event or type. It was like scrapbooking, but not.

And then I started looking for people I knew; it was a bit heady and mysterious at the same time. Is that REALLY the same person I went to high school with? That’s what became of my elementary friends? She married HIM? (Insert canned laughter here)

And THEN the friend requests started coming in. It’s amazing to me that 20-plus years after high school I have more people that I’m ‘friends’ with than I thought actually knew me in High School. (Yes, I’ll repeat I was shy and mostly a wall-flower type).

I joined a few ‘Groups’, “Liked” a few pages, tagged some photos, trolled photo albums and friend pages. I began playing some games, which of course required that I invite other people (with similar amounts of time to waste) to play in order to attain yet another level.

I began using phrases like “do you have a Facebook page?” and “I’ll see you on Facebook” frequently. It is actually quite scary. I think I’m using Facebook more than email. Facebook is the 2^nd screen I log into every morning – the first being email. Then I log into “Blogger” (another thing I would never have considered without friends suggesting I start my own Blog, and then putting up with my many questions) and read all the blogs I’m subscribed to.

Somewhere along the line I’ve picked up friends of friends – people I’ve never actually MET in real life – but through comments and beliefs (real or inferred) we’ve found a commonality. Some of them have been suggested to me through their friends and others just spontaneously asked to be my ‘friend’ (I’m sure most of them regret that decision every. day).

My friend “count” doesn’t matter to me, although I do occasionally, narcissistically check the number just to see how many people I’ve ticked off (see below) or encouraged or completely pulled the wool over. I notice that after I’ve been particularly mouthy regarding a subject (read: correctly opinionated) or outspoken about something that others find offensive (read: judgmental, bigoted and hateful), my friend count drops by about 5%. But then in another few days it bounces back again because people find me.

Facebook has been a spectacular way for me to connect with people that I feel I’ve known forever, but I haven’t been able to talk to regularly, due to growing up, geography and that pesky work-thing. I’ve caught up on other people grandkids, met new cousins and re-connected with people I haven’t seen in decades.

My grandson is almost 11 months old. Through the miracle of Facebook, my friends were able to enjoy the announcement of his coming, follow and support us all through his health challenges and the blessings and testimony of his heart transplant and recovery. I’ve been able to share photos with friends across the country so they can see my kitchen remodel from the first destructive hammer blow to the final (I’m still waiting) placement of the crown molding. We all share our fears, surprise, hopes and grumblings about weather, teenagers, child-rearing, spouses and schools.

And, then there’s the elephant in the room. There are those people who like to stay current on current affairs. I actually READ 5 newspapers (online) in addition to about 5 blogs each day; I like to try to actually back my opinions up with other opinions – not necessarily like mine. Some days the postings (links) are related and some days I’m all over the map. I love the banter and the conversations, and yes, the debates, that happen over the simplest of posts. And yes, sometimes, the comments go astray; people get mean or snitty and the conversation gets heated. I’ve “lost” a couple of friends that way. I’ve had people “hide” or “block” me because of it. but it’s pretty much me right now, so although I’m not going to bash you over the head at the baseball park or the school parking lot because of illegal immigration or same-sex marriages; I’m also not “making” you read what I post on my page; your choice.

Some of the best recipes I use on a regular basis I’ve gotten from FB friends. I’ve kept in touch with friends and friends of friends from all over the country (and outside of the US too) through the miracle of the internet. Want an instant audience to anything you do? Need an opinion about a peeve or a rant? Want to know if it’s snowing 2 miles from your house? How about passing on local news or helping a friend sell a house? Outraged about a specific policy or wondering where the best pizza in town is? Facebook is your place.

And you don’t even have to get dressed.

JEN'S TAKE

A few years ago a friend of mine sent me an invitation, via email, to join a site called "Facebook." Being appalled by the very idea of MySpace and assuming it was something similar, I balked. On first look it looked absurd. Why on EARTH would I need to be subjected to the thoughts of people I know, all day, every day? What on earth? But, my friend wanted me to play Scrabble with her, so I signed up. (BTW I suck at Scrabble, even though I am a wordsmith and a darn good one at that. Humble, too. Go figure.)

At first I didn't use it very often, if at all. This was back when the status-line was pre-filled in with "is" so you had to find a way to sum up what you were thinking using only that particular to-be verb. Boring, and limited. (Jennifer is boring. And limited. That would have worked. Heh.) So I'm pretty sure my status line read "is pregnant and tired" for 3 or so months. (Now, of course, the status box asks "What's on your mind" and can that REALLY be summed up in 320 characters? Not likely.)

After the 2008 election, the way I use Facebook completely changed. Just as some were outraged at the results of the 2004 election, I was outraged at the results in 08. And I wasn't going to silently sit by, either. However, being "stuck" in the house all day with three children under the age of 4, how would I keep myself from not sitting silently by? I know! Facebook!

Somewhere within election week of that year, I started using my Facebook page as a way to voice my opinion (to which I am entitled) of our new government, and the reactions of America, and just life in general. I've never been a shallow person and I've never much cared for giving everyone around me the lowdown on my day to day thoughts or what I had for breakfast. (Which is probably why I balked at FB in the beginning. WHO CARES??????) But darn it, I was ANGRY at what I knew, then, would happen to our country.

Since I began using Facebook in THAT regard I've had quite a bit of time to reflect on its purpose (in my life, and others') and popularity, and on how it can affect aspects of our life of which we may be unaware.

I have had a variety of experiences--some good, some bad-with Facebook in the three-plus years since I signed up. I have met people I would never have known otherwise due to Facebook posts. (Ahem. Paige.) I have furthered relationships with people that I never would have had the opportunity to further relationships with. (My brother is a good example of this. We rarely talked, which my mother found odd, mainly due to geography and/or time and/or lack of family functions and now we interact daily on Facebook. Which of course my mother finds odd. Go figure.) And I have had people that I have known for years walk out of my life (on Facebook and otherwise) simply for me having the audacity to speak my mind.

And I think that's where a lot of my feelings for and about Facebook come from. I view it as a conversational tool. Though I realize not everyone views it as such, I am NOT--repeat NOT a shallow person. Nor can I ever pretend to be. I simply do not want to bombard my Facebook friends (or "followers" depending upon whom you ask; more on that in a sec) with ridiculous posts about what I'm fixing for dinner (though sharing recipes is always good) or where my children and I went today or plan to go tomorrow (also not a bad idea as a whole, mind you, but it's not something I generally talk about in everyday conversation so why would I limit my FB posts to that regard?) or weather reports. (I have a Facebook friend who updates his page several times a day with weather reports. No, he is not a meteorologist. Yes, I am highly capable of looking up the weather myself. What I want to know about is his life. His thoughts, his feelings, his emotions. Because he is my FRIEND. Jeff Renner can tell me the weather, but I don't really care about Jeff Renner's personal life.

Anyway. Back to my use of Facebook. After the election shock and anger subsided (assuming, I suppose, that it has in fact subsided) I continued using Facebook on a daily basis to share whatever was "on my mind." And this, friends, is where I ran into (and still run into) trouble.

My mind is always "on". I'm always thinking about this or that or the other thing, and often this, that, or the other are too profound (in my humble opinion) not to share. Some--some would argue *most*--of my thoughts are not "safe" for "public" consumption. But I disagree with that line of thinking in regards to my line of thinking for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, my Facebook page is MY Facebook page. I have it set at the highest privacy setting possible. No one can see my page unless I confirm them as a friend. And I'm ultra picky about my friends. (Sometimes I'll take a chance on someone and be surprised…sometimes I'll give someone a chance and drop them if they don't meet my expectations.) But unless you're an idiot, it's pretty easy to NOT have your Facebook page be public knowledge. So in that regard, I'm not sure why it matters to any of my friends why I post the things I post (which I'm asked, daily). Perhaps it's because I am a deeply relational person (and, honestly, I feel the sum of our life experiences come from how we relate and to WHOM rather than what we do) but I feel that the only way to truly *know* someone and to *relate* to them is to know their innermost thoughts and how their mind works. Secondly, most of the time my thoughts aren't "safe" because they are what most people view as controversial. This is where a lot of the, well, controversy comes from on my Facebook page. I believe there are people on my page (can't speak for others) who don't understand the meaning of "debate" or even "discussion." I do post things that are debate and discussion-worthy, and sometimes a large number of comments appear in response. (I had one thread get over 160 comments, once. Most average 40-50.) So if someone disagrees with me and I give a rebuttal, I'm labeled "argumentative", "rude", or "bitchy" for continuing the discussion. This has actually happened! And I've had people say to me that I need to not post such controversial statements that allow my friends to corroborate my negativity. True story! (I fail to understand how I am responsible for the thoughts, feelings, actions, and re-actions of my friends. Please explain it to me, if you need to.) I've even had people say they can't be my Facebook friend, but will remain my real-life friend. Oddly, have I heard from these people since they removed themselves from my Facebook?

I suppose my bottom line is this: Facebook is my place to share what I *want* to share. I realize not everyone wants to hear what I have to say. That is their choice. Hide me, delete me, whatever. It's cool. (Although if you make a comment like "I'll still be your real life friend" upon deleting me, you'd damn well better pick up the phone and see how I'm doing every once in a while.) But it is MY place. And I will share what I want, when I want, how I want. And I am not responsible for the thoughts and opinions of my friends. All opinions are welcome on my page. But I reserve the right (as in any good discussion) to offer a rebuttal. I don’t, personally, delete people very often. If I do it is because they blatantly insult me, my children, or my friends. I have, once that I can think of, deleted someone to SAVE a real-life relationship (and it worked). Basically what I'm saying is this: just because I debate with you on Facebook doesn't make me like you less. Please give me the same courtesy if you call yourself my "friend."

Episode 3: Book Review, "The Shack"

PAIGE'S TAKE:

This week we decided to review a book that we’ve both read. Jen frequently recommends books to me; so far I’ve read three she’s suggested. We read for different reasons and tend to read different genres: Jen reads for education, information and a bit of pleasure and I tend to read solely for pleasure with an occasional jump into trying to inform myself. Her ‘pleasure’ reads are Judy Piccoult; mine are Nora Roberts. So, it’s a bit remarkable that I’ve enjoyed two of the books she’s recommended; the other one was kind of a “maybe”. (By the way, I still have about three others I may never get to read as there just aren’t enough hours to read between laundry, Facebook, and being a mom.)

There was quite a discussion that ensued over the theme and spirituality of the book; and whether works of religious fiction should go so far as to change the scope and accuracy of the God outlined in the Bible. As I read for fiction I was pretty certain I wouldn’t find the book blasphemous or sacrilegious; I have, in comparison, read the “Left Behind” series; which cannot under any suggestion be considered anything but fiction with some truth interwoven in their pages.

I don’t believe any modern writer can adequately write a book dealing with the certainty of God’s character, meaning, teachings or truths without involving a bit of their own fiction and personal beliefs of God. God chose to directly intervene and speak to the writer’s of the true Bible, using his voice and his power – I don’t believe modern authors can claim that same authenticity without a bit of skepticism being considered by any reader.

People of any faith (or no faith), believers or not, should read any book pertaining to religion, with a bit of doubt; as a starting point to study and learn more about the subject they are reading about. History books are not to be taken at face value; websites, news articles and many publications are usually written with a great deal of bias, as well as truth (I won’t quantify the amount of truth – it will depend on the author, the facts and research used and the subject). So, if a book presents a specific belief, it should not be taken at face value, but investigated and verified using true sources of knowledge – a dictionary, Bible dictionary, a Hebrew translator, a trusted pastor or your own insight and / or knowledge of God.

When Jen recommended this book to me, I was fairly certain I wouldn’t like it, but within a few pages I was pretty swept up in the story. Writing style is a lot to me and the characters were likeable and real. The story itself is set in the Pacific Northwest, so the visual descriptions were easy to imagine as well as mind-pictures I could identify from personal experience.

*POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT???*

Mack had a horrid childhood and it’s remarkable to me that he seems to have a fairly “normal” adult life; a stable marriage to a hard-working, Christian woman, and children than are well-liked, friendly and with no obvious issues, until the “Great Sadness” hits their lives. He doesn’t seem to have a close relationship with God, but he’s not completely against the idea or availability of God, either.

Over the course of one weekend, Mack has an opportunity to speak with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit through an invitation he receives in the mailbox. The three are personified in a complex and interwoven personality that clearly explains and yet completely mystifies the reader and Mack. There is clarity in the discussions with the three that explains, although in human knowledge, the beauty, the intricacy and the power of God that I think many search for but may not find through church, relationships with others and solely reading the Bible. Throughout the weekend, Mack comes to grips with religion, salvation, relationships, love, grace and learns to heal and grow because of his past and into what can be his future.

This is a very deep book with a lot of religious and spiritual teachings that would benefit a great many Christians in their lives. It is troubling that the author uses gender to assign personality to the Triune, although I know that as humans we tend to personalize God (and the trinity) in male format; Biblically, God is always referred to in the male pronoun. I have to say that I appreciate the author’s vision of the trinity and the explanation that each character of the triune gives for their appearance in their meetings with Mack. I’m not sure that Mack, in his pain and struggles with religion and family would have accepted any other appearance of the God-head than what was presented. Through his time with the three; his healing begins and he is more able to relate to the God that we all associate and characterize.

There is some profound wisdom regarding friendships and relationships that make the book far more than just a ‘religious’ book or retelling of a story; fascinating in the intricate yet simple ways we relate with others as well as God.

I would not recommend this book to a person looking for God or struggling with God’s power in their life; although those may be the exact people the story was written to touch. It IS a fictional account; although the author says it’s based on a true story.

I would however recommend this book to someone who is searching for a deeper meaning of God – although it should be remembered that my opinion is that it is not a book written by God through the author, it is the author’s perception of a man’s struggle with God and our identity in God.

JEN'S TAKE

Whenever the entire world reveres a “Christian” novel, I’m exceptionally wary. When a “Christian” novel jumps to the top of the national bestseller list, I’m nervous. After all, Jesus told us that if the world agrees with us, we’re doing it wrong. If the world hates us, we’re doing it right. (That’s reassuring since I’m frequently hated.)

And so it is with “The Shack” by William P. Young. For three years or so I’ve avoided reading this book for the reason above. Though reviews from friends and family have been along the lines of “This book changed my life” and “I’ve never understood God until I read this book”, the skeptic (see above) in me refused to read it.

Then it came up in a “What are you reading” discussion on Facebook, and though I’d never read it, I went off about the horrible doctrine and absurd theology contained within. But I’m smart enough to know that an argument won’t hold water unless I have something to tread with, so I admitted I hadn’t read the book, and that I would read it to see if my opinion had changed.

(I was, I have to admit, insulted when a Facebook friend asked me within the discussion “Do you read much fiction?” as if to imply that I couldn’t possibly understand that this book was fiction and, therefore, the bad theology could be discarded. More on that later.)

I read it.

My opinion did not change.

(Stop reading here if you haven’t read the book because it’ll likely be spoiled for you. If you’re ok with that, continue. You’ve been warned.)

The premise of the book is a man, Mack, wrestling with a grief he’s been unable to shake since his 6-year-old daughter was abducted and presumed murdered a few years before. (Disclaimer: I am not implying his grief should be shaken, not at all. I’ve never lost a child and can’t presume to know how it would feel at any given hour or moment. I imagine that, like Mack, I’d likely hate the killer for a good long time.) So a few years after the abduction, Mack arrives home one afternoon to find a note in his mailbox. It implores him to meet him at “the shack” and is signed “Papa.”

(I found it odd that Mack instantly believed that the note came from God. I mean, really? I mean, we knew that his own father was dead, but to automatically assume that “Papa” was God was a jump that I don’t think we were ready to make. But I digress.)

So let’s continue. Mack. Note. God. He gets this note and, after a discussion with a friend, decides to go to the shack. To meet God. (The shack is a rundown building in the middle of nowhere in Oregon where it’s assumed his daughter’s murder took place.) But he feels he can’t tell his wife so he lies to her while she’s away with their other children. He lies to his wife about going to see God. Mmmmkay.

So he borrows a jeep, works his way through the Oregon wilderness, and arrives at the shack, looking for God. He is greeted by—I am not making this up—a big black woman (my aunt told me to think of Della Reese in “Touched By an Angel” and I have to agree that’s an accurate description). This—this big black Della Reese looking woman—is God.

Really.

Now. I’m not saying that God does not appear in human form, or that God cannot appear however He needs to appear. This is true, to a point; it may be that when He “appears” to us as someone we have known or loved, for example, He’s not sending you Himself, He’s sending you that person, with a message from Him. But I digress

But. God. Is. Not. A. Woman.

Regardless of your “interpretation” as to whether or not God is actually genderless (He is genderless but there is a reason He is referred to as a “father” and not as a “mother” in the Bible) it’s a form of blasphemy to attempt to give definition to God.

Ok, fine. But this is fiction you say. (Or, at least, my FB friend suggested…with the implication that I, a writer and holder of an English degree, could not distinguish fiction from non.)

And I think that’s really the crux of the whole debate for me: just because something is fiction, must it still hold to good theology and doctrine? Does it make a difference if the work is fiction or not if the theology is bad?

I argue no, and my gut says that Paige is going to argue yes.

Paige will say that, if that’s the case, every book ever written will be blasphemous, heretical, and full of false doctrine. I’m not so sure that’s the case. Every book ever written is not selling itself as an allegorical story of forgiveness, salvation, and redemption, as “The Shack” is doing. I mean, if I pick up a romance novel (and I don’t know anyone…cough cough, Paige…who reads those regularly) I’m not expecting the hero with robust loins to be patterned after my Lord and Savior, and I’m not expecting the heroine to represent all of fallen mankind. That’s the difference. People have been writing allegory for centuries, and I am and have been perfectly fine with that. It’s just that usually when writing allegory, one does not give a Godly name and human shape to the being meant to be the allegorical savior. Furthermore, not all fiction is directly about God the father and His relationship with both Jesus and us. It’s that distinction that I believe sets “The Shack” apart from all other fiction, even Christian fiction, and it may be where Paige and I disagree.

In “The Shack”, Papa is not only meant to represent God, but the author tells us point blank that Papa is God. And the author also gives human form to Jesus—certainly fine, because, after all, Jesus was God in human form; and to the Holy Spirit, an Asian woman who floats through the scenes. It is her that perhaps leaves the greatest effect on Mack, and it’s her personification that I think I take the greatest issue with. The thing about the Trinity—Father, Son, and Spirit—is that we are not meant to understand it. In the Bible, God never even describes Jesus but to give details regarding where He was born and his heritage, which can lead one to imagine what He may have looked like. The reason God doesn’t tell us what God looks like, or why He doesn’t give definition to the Holy Spirit (other than the fact that it is, you know, a spirit), is because we’re simply not meant to know. And to claim that we do know, or even to pretend we know, is blasphemy at worst, heresy at best.

There were certainly things that I did not take issue with in this book. The overall theme of forgiveness and letting go is one that I think everyone needs to be exposed to. It’s difficult to forgive someone who has hurt us so badly, and I think someone would be lying if they said they’d never had trouble forgiving someone, and not many people have gone through what Mack has, to be honest.

So I get that. I get that it’s a powerful theme, and one that probably needs to be explored on a deeper level and on a regular basis. I get that what we are supposed to take away from the book is not, in fact, the possibility that God could be a black woman (He’s not), that Jesus claims He doesn’t care about sin (He does), and that the Holy Spirit is in fact flesh and blood and a woman who speaks with an Asian accent (it’s not).

But I worry. I worry that someone who reads this book who is not well-versed (no pun intended) in the Scriptures or doesn’t even really have a solid understanding of what is and isn’t sound doctrine, if a Christian, is going to come away from this book thinking that William P. Young’s (fictional) God—the God who says sin is its own punishment and there is, therefore, no hell; the God who says that all people of all faiths eventually wind up with Him anyway; the God who loves with the love of a nurturing mother and not a loving father (and if you think there is no difference and that a parent is just a parent you are dead, dead wrong)—is the God they worship. And I fear if they believe this is the God they worship, they’ll wind up in hell rather than the heaven they believe in. (Of course, they wouldn’t think there was a hell or that people go there, so….) I worry even more, though, for those that read this book—more than likely the majority of readers—who are not Christian will get “saved” through this book. They’ll be saved without a mention of the Gospel, without a mention of the Garden of Eden and our basic need for salvation, without an understanding of what God can do for us. Instead, they’ll be saved into a faith where they spend more time thinking about what they can do for God. That sort of faith implies God needs us. He doesn’t. If He did, He would not be God.

As my pastor is fond of saying, what you win them with will be what you win them to. And for that, because of this book, I am fearful.

Why Get Married?

This week, Jen and I wanted to talk about why marriage is important and why 'everyone' wants to be married. 

Jen's Voice:

          When my husband and I were dating, 12 years ago, I remember one morning he was over at my apartment before work.  (No, he hadn't slept there, he came over to…well, I can't even remember. But we didn't live together.  He'd often come by in the mornings and we shared most meals together in the evening too.)  Anyway, we were brushing our teeth in my bathroom and he said to me, with a mouthful of toothpaste, "Some day we'll be doing this in the nude."  My silly 22 year old self thought that sounded great.  We laughed and thought about how cool that would be, said goodbye, and went to work.

         

          Well you know what?  12 years later, 10 years into our marriage, most days we're fighting over the one bathroom in our house so we can brush our teeth in private.  The only time we ever see each other nude is when we…well…need to.  If you get my drift.  (Even that, really, you just need to be *partially* nude…and if the lights are out, that's a big bonus.) 

         

           All that to say, that *feeling*, that "Holy cow, we could do this naked and be married and have SO much fun" feeling, it wears off.  There will come a time when you'll think "My gosh, if I have to look at that man one more second today…" and your thought won't really complete itself.

         

            I think a lot of people go into the idea of wanting to be married thinking that it's always going to be like it is right now.  In fact a celebrity (if I may use that term loosely) said recently of her broken engagement, "The best your marriage is going to be is how it is when you're dating" and the problem is that I think most people *believe* that, which accounts for not only the astronomical divorce rate, but the rampant desire (almost infatuation-ish) homosexuals have for marriage.  They want what they feel NOW for the REST. OF. THEIR. LIVES.

         

          That's simply not going to happen.

         

          So here's the thing:  marriage is HARD.  Marriage takes work, every minute of every day.  Marriage is not just about getting to brush your teeth in the nude with that person whenever you want.  (Really, who wants that?  Ick.)  Marriage is not about fulfilling your sexual desires.

         

           (I'll give that a minute to sink in.)

         

           And that's where my opposition to gay marriage lies.  Ask any homosexual and they'll say "But this is who I'm *attracted* to."  They won't say "This is my soulmate" or "this is the person I can see myself growing old with" or anything else. They'll say "This is who I'm *attracted* to."  Well. Bully for you.  And I suppose, really, that that's my point.  At some point, people, it is statistically probable that you will no longer be *attracted* to your spouse, whether heterosexual or otherwise.  If that is your basis for wanting to be married, why should I grant you that "right". Most people--even heterosexual people--marry based on whom they are *attracted* to.  Twelve years ago, I thought the best thing in life would be to brush my teeth in the nude with my then-boyfriend/now-husband.

          I'm not down on marriage by any means.  I just don't think people who are fighting for marriage realize what it *is*.

          It's living with the same person and their same quirks year after year after bloody year.  Amazingly, in 10 years, my husband *still* has not learned how to close a cupboard door when he's done with it.  (I thought he would have learned that by now.)

          It's having children and, in doing so, watching any time you might have enjoyed spending as a couple being used, instead for his-and-hers alone-time type tasks.

          It's trying to remember all the cutesy things you did and said when you were dating and thinking "My gosh that was so long ago."

          It's trying to remember why you even wanted to *get* married in the first place, anyway.

          And it is loving your spouse through the weight gain, the wrinkles, the bad moods, the frustrations, the not being attracted to them anymore, the them not being attracted to you anymore, the open cupboard doors, the days where the children have left you curled up in a fetal position waiting for the men in white coats.

          You marry them because of who they are.  You marry them because of how they make you feel.  You stay with them, most of the time, in spite of who they are.  You stay with them in spite of how they make you feel. 

          But.  I could just be cynical.

          What is marriage to *you*? 

Paige's Voice:

“Mawwage is what bwings us togwether today....”

Why does marriage matter?  Why does anything really matter?  If everyone could have a Ferrari or a castle, would anyone find them appealing?  If what was available to only a few was granted to everyone, would it be as special or as important?

Originally, the purpose of marriage was to legally bind a man and a woman together for legal and property purposes, as well as children and wealth.  Love didn’t come into play in many marriages – in several countries marriages are still arranged by parents or family for the purpose of lineage or financial advantages.   

Not everyone could marry; but it wasn’t reserved just for wealthy or royals, either.  The Act of Marriage was a privilege sanctified by the laws of God and legalized by the laws of man.  Contracts were drawn up, vows were made, papers were signed, and witnesses were required.  Even elopements had regulations that were followed. 

So why do we romanticize marriage so much in modern day society?  Today marriage seems to be all about “love”.  I love this person, so the natural progression is to marry and have kids (although, sadly not always in that order).  But is marriage just about love; that gooey feeling that causes stars in your eyes and butterflies in your stomach? What happens, when that gooey feeling goes away? 

In the news (if you Google “Strange Marriages”) you’ll find people – humans – who have married: The Eiffel Tower, Himself, The Berlin Wall, A DS Game Character, a Fairground Ride, a dead ex-boyfriend, a pillow, a snake…. And the list goes on and on.  So, what was the reason they married these things?  They had formed an attachment to the item and felt attracted to remain with them forever.  (I’m not going to necessarily touch on the physical aspect of these relationships).  There was no intent, desire or possibility of having children with their new spouse.  There was no need to leave an estate or worldly possessions to that spouse – although I do know that people have left millions to their living animals – but they didn’t marry them to do so.

 Marriage is about more that the dating relationship; it’s a lifelong commitment to that other person.  To be a better person by being with them, caring for them, staying with them, loving them when neither of you deserved to be loved.  It’s about more than children – many couples don’t have children in their marriages and stay married forever. 

Marriage should be the give and take of everyday life.  Getting up in the morning because you’re the morning person, while your spouse is not; finishing the argument (or letting it go) because it’s really important to the other person.  Standing up for each other regardless of what the parents, kids or friends say.  Marriage is a lifetime commitment. Yes, I have friends that are divorced; and yes, there are valid reasons for divorce; but that’s not this post.

Marriage has been in the news because it’s been declared a right of all – not just for one man and one woman, but for any consenting adult that chooses to marry another consenting adult.  Those that oppose changing the description of marriage as being “between one man and one woman” are called religious extremists, haters, bigots, homophobes.  People who are in favor of changing the face of marriage forever are said to be people just fighting for their rights and equality.

If marriage is such an important entitlement, then I agree that everyone should be allowed to marry whomever they choose.  But that leads our country and our people down the banks to a very slippery slope of legal questions and rules.  As I see it, if we re-define marriage to include anyone who has a whim to marry, then the laws must be changed regarding gender, age and plurality  of marriage.  If marriage is no longer confined to one man and one woman (it IS STILL illegal in the United States to be a polygamist), then marriage will become available to all.   The consenting age would need to be changed to reflect the maturity age of a person, not just the chronological age on the cake.  And, as referenced in my opening paragraphs, who is to say that the pillow or the deceased boyfriend didn’t consent to the marriage anymore than marrying one’s goat or tractor?

The problem with equality is that not everyone is equal.  Not everyone has the same body or thoughts or beliefs or abilities.  Legalizing marriage for every person would do more than just damage the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, change the layout of the family and bring equality to minority groups.  It would completely destroy the necessity of marriage. 

So, I ask again, if everyone can do it, then why would anyone want to?

Episode 1: Why Tandem Blogging?

Not that anyone cares, but there are reasons why we do this.

PAIGE'S TAKE

Jen ‘N Paige Show “Why we do what we do”

Yeah, I’m sure this is either the answer to many of our reader’s prayers; or the absolute reality of all their nightmares. In any case, here’s why I think we started this blog.

I have my own personal blog which is just truly a way to get stuff out of my head. I don’t actually expect that any of you will actually read it on a regular basis – but just in case you care, I have three followers. My personal blog is a way to just get my thoughts on ‘paper’ instead of posting everything on Facebook. But I usually do that too, just not in as wordy of commentary.

This Blog is more of a way for Jen and I to voice our opinions, which are usually similar (some might say “eerily so”) in a format that allows for comments, but also allows us more space to talk about subjects of interest to us.

It’s not about judging or criticizing or gossiping; although any of the posts may seem that way to any of the readers. I love to discuss current events, and I’m pretty much a factual person. I have LOTS of opinions, but contrary to popular belief, they may not always have a religious reason. Sometimes I actually believe something because there are FACTS supporting the belief, or because I have experienced the facts or circumstances on my own.

But you’ll have to have a sense of humor sometimes too because, really, not everything is all that serious!

JEN'S TAKE

Tandem blogging? Wha? What kind of crazy idea is that?

Yeah, I'll admit, it might not be the best idea I've had in a long time. But it might be the most fun.

See, Paige and I both have (or have had) blogs. We enjoy them, we write for them when we can or have something "witty" or "deep" to "impart"; but we frequently find ourselves reading something the other wrote and thinking "Yes!"

A few months ago, over burritos, I broached the idea of having a tandem blog where we could banter about the same subject, possibly from different viewpoints. (As *if*…we disagree on very few things but darn it, I will NOT back down from my love of Sugarland--except the latest album, blech--and if I hear Kenny Chesney from her car stereo one more time I will vomit all over the big black Suburban.) Really, though, my idea went deeper went that and it took a while to formulate it. Because, you know, I *never* just spit my ideas or thoughts out without formulating them. Ever. Ever.

So what I (ok, we…sorry Paige) came up with is this. What you see here. "The Jen 'N Paige Show." I don't even know how we got that name. Somewhere along the line one of her Facebook friends started calling our daily banter that, and it stuck. What we *hope* to do is to take at least one topic (of our "random" choosing) per week. When the topic is chosen, we'll each write (separately, as in having no knowledge of what the other is writing) a blurb, essay, or however much we feel comfortable writing). One of us will combine the two entries into a post, giving credit to the appropriate author where it is due and, as my 4 year old would say, "Voila!" The Jen 'N Paige Show will be in full swing.

So maybe you know Paige, or maybe you know me, or maybe you know neither one of us. Here's my intro, if you're interested.

I'm a mom of 3 kids under 6. My oldest turns 6 in November, his brother will be 5 in May, and their sister will be 3 in January. Yes, I know what causes that. As a stay at home mom* (*or maid, depending upon who you ask) I find that as busy as my days are, I'm often lacking in, well, any sort of conversation that doesn't revolve around poop, pee, or bodily functions or appendages. So, writing is a good opportunity for me to use my brain, discuss topics that are important to me, and bounce ideas off of others. So, that’s me in a nutshell (of a very small nut). You'll learn more about me through my postings.

Paige and I have very different writing styles which will quickly become evident. Most of the time we'll likely end up saying almost the exact same thing (depending on the subject) but you'll have to read it two, three, or a thousand times, all the while going "What? They don’t agree on that? Weird." So. It shall be fun. Depending on your definition, of course.

One more thing:

How did I meet Paige? (Oh, no one asked that? My bad.) We have a mutual friend in common who, upon being subjected to each of our bazillion Facebook postings a day, decided we'd be good friends, so it was sort of a "Facebook blind date" if you will. I got the friend suggestion, "friended" her (how sad is it that my spell check does not want to correct "friended"?), she accepted, and…Facebook as you know it was never the same. (Nor was I, but I'm hoping to avoid sap and focus on the funny, for now.) That was a year or so ago (she knows the exact months and will point out that it was LESS than a year, but whatever). Now, we can't function without each other. Sad, but very true. (I went to the grocery store for 3 hours today and her text upon my return *might* have mentioned the fact that she was "pathetic" with me "gone." Maybe.) And, because we feel like the things we have to say are possibly the second-most important things anyone has *ever* had to say, we shall combine our efforts in immortal cyberspace. One middle aged chick and one completely-devoid-of-humor chick. In one place. For all the world to see and read.

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

*Comments are always welcome on anything we write.*

Defining Our Relationship

Paige and I recently had a talk about "dating" versus "going on a date" and that led to a discussion about what, when I was young, we called DTR, or "defining the relationship." This is a talk that a person would have with his or her soon-to-be significant other. The end result would be that blissful state of calling each other "boyfriend" and "girlfriend."

So we present our Friendship DTR's to you.

PAIGE'S TAKE

I enjoy my emails and phone calls and IRL time with you in a way I haven’t enjoyed ‘girlfriend time’ in a long time.

I am perfectly okay if you have other friends and won’t feel in the least threatened if you tell one of them something you don’t tell me.

Although I worry if I don’t hear from you in a while, I’m not jealous or suspicious of your time not with me. I’m merely concerned for your well being.

I think we should plan to have a life-long friend ship that will end when you push my wheelchair off a cliff or I die. But not before.

I think it’s funny that we have so many similar likes and dislikes, but find it even more amusing that the things that make us different don’t seem to really change who we are.

I love the way your face lights up when you get a good idea (or the way I imagine it does if we’re online) and your odd, quirky sense of humor.

JEN'S TAKE

1. You're the only person I *talk* to on the phone. Take that for what you will.

2. I don't really care that some of your friends don't like me, though I do mind when they mindlessly attack what I say without getting to know me. I don't, however, like it when people try to crash our inside jokes. But I'll deal. We'll just make up some new inside jokes and not let anyone in on them.

3. I plan for all my friendships to be life-long which is why it hurts when one ends prematurely for whatever reason. And I think you'll outlive me, but I know that scares you. Oh well. Said it anyway.

4. I love that when I'm mad at you (or, perturbed) I get over it super quickly and never (this is recent) think it means the friendship is over.

5. I learned the art of grudge holding from my mother but I'll try not to practice it with you. (Feral cat.)