Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Studies Blog

The iMonk interview.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

InternetMonk has a short interview with me on his blog.

I have to say that it was a real honor to be asked to do it; I've lurked on his web site off and on over the past few years. His site has quite a large and active readership.

To be honest, I wasn't sure about doing the interview. I'd grown a bit tired of the recent activity surrounding a few posts on this blog that I didn't know if I was up for any more response or questions or emails wanting me to "clarify" my position.

Nevertheless, I'm really honored that he took the time to ask me a few questions and give me a voice on his blog. I'm sure the ensuing discussion will be interesting.

UPDATE: Well, the iMonk interview brought about a link and "discussion" on this page. Can't say I'm thrilled. The debate seems less on what I said and more on who I am and whether or not (or how) I should have written it. Whatever. Been there, done that. Best quote for the money? "I gotta be honest." Sure.

I assure you, I'm not as "prickly" as it may seem.

Labels: christianity, guest blogging, interviews, links

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Shades of forgiving.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

Recently, I was involved in an online situation that turned ugly and personal in attack.

Since it had all happened "behind closed doors" from the public view, I was allowed to delete all of my comments and participation; I did not want those to be my last words on the site. I was incredibly annoyed at myself for having been convinced of the idea of going back and explaining myself (never explain yourself, Julie!); it would have been better to have quietly removed myself as originally planned. Some things are better left unsaid. And even if they aren't, I certainly wished I'd done a better job of saying them. As it was, the hoped for removal of myself with class and kindness and non-burned bridges was gone and I was, quite frankly, stunned. Stunned at both myself and another person.

Initially I was angry and reacted as such. I felt as if some kind of curtain were ripped back and I saw, at long last, how I was really viewed and thought of in a place that I had initially considered a safe zone. I felt stupid and patronized, as if I'd just been tolerated there, but not really thought of as belonging.

Later, though, as all of you self-blamers out there know, I decided it was all my fault and that I deserved it. Who was I to think that I should have even tried to join in with those people? That I had anything of value to add? That I was little more than as the person described me: passive-agressive, defensive, using the women's card as some kind of ploy, emotional, unable to understand and take part in what a true discussion consisted of. I blamed myself to a great extent. I felt foolish -- clearly, they'd all been thinking this and had just been putting up with my silliness until now!

That, however, is a lazy way of refusing to see truth. It does take two to tango. It's not all the other person's fault, and it certainly isn't all my fault.

The person involved emailed and wondered if there was any way we could "work this out." The choice of words was mildly bemusing to me at that point.

Work it out? What work? What out? It felt as if everything had already been "outed."

I left the email sit for a day and thought and prayed about it. One thing about my flash-anger is that it is gone very quickly and at that point, I'd long moved passed anger to being hurt to blaming myself to wondering and thinking about what it really was I should do. I responded truthfully, informing the person that what had happened hurt me very much but that I wasn't angry and, essentially, to just let bygones be bygones. I had no further desire to haggle the ins and outs of this particular situation; I felt as if it were a God-thing, that I should take this opportunity to move on.

Here's the catch: I also asked this person to no longer communicate with me.

I didn't mean that out of anger, but out of a desire to truly put this down.

I can't be sure, but historically, I believe I have confused the concept of forgiving and being forgiven in such a way that I was unable to also to purposefully remove a person or situation from my life that was proving to be toxic. After all, I'd think, isn't that unforgiveness, the refusal to let a person back in as it was before?

I'm leaning towards "no."

That is a trap, thinking that forgiving and letting go and not holding something against a person also must involve putting yourself back in the same path of the same problem should you or that person have yet to reach a place of change. God's forgiveness is unconditional, the perfect model for us, but it is forgiveness that still demands we live with the effects of our sin and behavior.

Forgiving and being forgiven is a separate issue from making wise decisions about the people in your life.

Labels: christianity, guest blogging

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

The church and pleasure.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

I've written another post over at CRN.info, about the topic of the church and pleasure.

Labels: christianity, guest blogging

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

The soul of wit.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

I have a new post over at CRN.info: The soul of wit.

UPDATE: ...and then this post, "Papered qualifications", in response to a commenter on the "The soul of wit" post.

Labels: bible, christianity, guest blogging

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Spiritual astringent.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 6 comments link this post

Friday and today have become a huge, sucking vacuum. I have spent nigh unto ten hours at the computer, waging a word battle for nothing.

I never do this. I hate it when people do this. I did this.

First, I blogged here. Then I blogged there. Then, the comments sections exploded and I not only didn't get out of the way, I lit a few matches, too. Do you have many hours to waste? You might be able to read all the comments in the posts in question, including this one (you must right click, copy link, and paste in a new window -- the link won't work directly), which is what inspired me to blog the other two.

The experience has left me absolutely spiritually dry.

And also revealed something to me about the way people use scripture.

Some people use a specific verse or chapter method. They "apply" a specific verse as is, the words directly, little or no context, or sense of the entire Word of God and how the scripture fits into the whole. Ba-da-boom. Applied. Quick jabs and stabs.¹

Some people do not just see isolated chunks of scripture, divisions of non-relation between Old and New Testament, beginnings and ends -- some see the whole package and apply scripture as a whole.

When I read a book, I don't talk about it in parts. I talk about the entire package, all that I've learned and the entire message -- the whole thing. The parts are intentionally connected and therefore, rely upon each other and are all important. This is like the latter method of using scripture. It's not a cop out. It doesn't tremble at what seem like contradictions. It takes it all in as a whole instead of unrelated pieces and finds the message found within the similarities and contradictions. It's a working, living, book.

I made a comment about the contradictions that seem to exist in the Bible:

Do you think that the Bible isn't contradictory? What would it mean if it was?

I mean, really. I'm not saying that any contradictions would negate the Bible as authority and truth -- I often find that contradictions and paradoxes are only seen that way to humans with our limited viewpoint, but that paradoxes and contradictions actually create a deeper picture. You know, like death being life, the strong being weak...

I often wonder why people run from any hint that there might be contradictions in the Bible, as if that makes it untrue. I believe the Bible is wholly true and the inspired word of God and also contains what appear to us humans as "contradictions." That's a living, breathing book, the Bible. It exists in history and through time and out of time, being from the past now in the present and already mapping out the future in a sense -- it's the Word. Of course it is going to seem to contradict and confuse -- we are trapped in some kind of limited view in linear time.

I find the contradictions and impossibilities of agreement on interpretation exciting. You know, Joe, what you said about some Christians coming to one conclusion and others coming to a different conclusion, but both being Christians nonetheless… that would seem to be a contradiction. An impossibility. How could God tell his people different things? Oh, but we just don't know what God is doing, his larger plan, and why he could possibly want "soldiers" that aren't all marching the same way when that's how we think it should be. I think the contradictions strengthen the "truthiness" of the Bible, not weaken it.

In the second post I wrote, I was accused of not using scripture. I found this confusing, since all that I was trying to say has come from my Bible reading and study, and the notes I've taken over the years. My entire world view and thought process comes from that. To me, what I think and do and say is using scripture in the most broadest and intentional sense.

But, you see, I wasn't hacking out chunks of chapters, throwing out specific verses. I wasn't saying things like "according to Eph. 1:8" or "this situation should have 1 Corinthians 1:6 applied to it." So I wasn't using scripture, in their eyes. One reason I was wary to write for that blog, even when asked and assured it would be OK, is that I am not that kind of person, the one who bandies about words like "exegete" and "hermeneutics" -- I'm an average, plain Jane who reads her Bible with trust that the Spirit will reveal it to me, and I keep building on each reading to create the whole being I am in the Word.

I feel like I've taken a wee bit of a whopping because I'm not a Bible scholar in that traditional sense.

I was told by one young lady that she had no respect for arguments not based in scripture, which she seemed to be suggesting I was doing.

Interesting.

My whole existence is based in scripture. I just haven't divided it all up into compartments and verses and applications for specific areas of life. I would never whip out a verse and "apply" it to someone without considering as many more related bits of scripture as I could remember, and using them all together. I haven't relegated Old Testament to being Old and New testament to being relevant. They are part and parcel of the same story. The beginning and the end at once. Not a start and finish, but the entire Word. It's a whole. The Word of God lives, and it lives in me.

But, all in all, I can say that the entire experience has left me really, really, really wanting to avoid these kinds of Christians. And not sure if I'll take the time to write another post like that. For, being the only woman writer at that blog, I was called "emotional" (by another of the male writers, no less) while I've never seen the male writers called that. Apparently, I have to overcompensate and become dispassionate, removed or almost disinterested so as to avoid being seen as another "emotional" female.

Exhausting. Sucked the life right out of my spirit. I'm glad tomorrow is Sunday. I need it. Thank God for church. I mean that. Good Christian people who love and know me -- I'm barely able to wait.

Moral of the story: Are you spiritually dry? Stop blogging. Get to church!

-----------------------------

¹ This cut-and-slice vs. as-a-whole method that I believe creates some of the argument over the topic at hand, which is, essentially, the position of women in the church, specifically as pastor. I would try to include OT examples, while being told to use NT scripture only. Since I do not see why there should be some kind of disconnect, but that both OT and NT teachings, examples and stories of women should be considered, the argument went on interminably. The strictest adherents on what a woman is not allowed to do feverishly quote select verses written by Paul. They are not to be discounted, those verses, but should be added into th whole, which includes OT examples, the example of Jesus and how he treated women, and Paul's own references to people like Phoebe who was a leader (some say deacon) in a church.

But the slice-and-dicers insist on Paul only. NT only. And Phoebe doesn't count because you're misinterpreting that. It is a strangely partitioned way of looking at scripture, and I don't understand how they are comfortable with that.

Labels: bible, blogging, christianity, guest blogging

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Are Women Human?

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 11 comments link this post

I got an email telling me about a post over at the Pyromaniacs blog. I've rather stopped reading that blog because, as the name suggests, it tends to be a big, inflammatory explosion before fading to smoke. However, Team Pyro had posted something Dorothy L. Sayers had written, and I rather like Sayers.

Her mysteries, for one, are top-notch. I also appreciate the fact that she was no weak-minded, weak-spirited woman, and even though she couldn't be part of the Inklings because she was a woman (despite her friendship with Lewis), I don't think anyone could say she was any less gifted or intelligent than those men.

So, after reading all of the Pyro post, I decided to add a little comment about one of my favorite Sayers books:

Sayers' essay/book Are Women Human is a very good read.

I would encourage you to read it, particularly if you think they are not human.

I don't hold my breath on Team Pyro excerpting any of that particular brand of Sayers. They are, quite likely, Calvinist Complementarian to the core. Women have their place, you know.

Why would I think such a thing? Because part of that fan club also includes people like this, who leave comments on posts like this:

Bob, when a chuch decides that it will allow a woman pastor or a transgender pastor then that chruch loses the right ot call itself Christian. They stand directly opposed to godliness and the teaching of the gospel. It has become a synagogue of Satan. Your choice is clear. If the elders won't repent then fInd a real Christian church.

Titus 2:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

Posted by: Chad V. on Thursday, November 15, 2007

To which I say:

Oh, it looks like both "sides" are pretty adept at wielding cookie cutters...

"...when a chuch decides that it will allow a woman pastor or a transgender pastor then that chruch loses the right ot call itself Christian. They stand directly opposed to godliness and the teaching of the gospel. It has become a synagogue of Satan."

Women pastors equated with transgender pastors.

Sigh.

Pyromaniacs have an interesting post on Dorothy L. Sayers today. I left a comment regarding one of her books on women.

Perhaps you should read the book.

I doubt it will happen.

Incidentally, for those of you wondering, women are, indeed, human. Women are not subservient or somehow on a sub-level than good men-folk like Chad, who, like all complementarians, will likely swear up and down that they don't think women are less human but always propose as much in hidden language when making sure women are not allowed in the Christian Boys Club.

A woman's Christianity and validity as a child of God (and as a human being) isn't related to her "job" or "duty" in Christ's kingdom, nor on definitions based on what we are, or are not, "allowed" to do.

Chad later responds:

Julie, Women are stricly forbidden from the pastorate. Transgender is just a P/C way of labeling sexual perversion. To allow either one to be a pastor is to deny the plain teaching of scripture. Scripture is so clear on these two issues that for a church to deny them is to deny the bible. It's open defiance of the command of Christ. They forefit the right to call them selves Christians anymore.

1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

I didn't equate women pastors and transgender pastors. It's not a sin to be a woman but it is a sin to be a woman pastor. It is also sin to be transgender. Men and women are both created in the image of God but they are different. They have different God defined roles. Women are forbidden from the pastorate.

Posted by: Chad V. on Friday, November 16, 2007

To which I replied:

Chad,

Obviously, I'm aware of those verses. I am also aware of people who do not interpret them the same as you, and yet are not part of the Synagogue of Satan.

"Scripture is so clear on these two issues that for a church to deny them is to deny the bible. It's open defiance of the command of Christ. They forefit the right to call them selves Christians anymore."

That's a very, very, very bold statement, Chad. What specific command of Jesus Christ purports what you are saying here?

What is the Gospel? Does it include Chad's broad brush stroke? The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as far as I am aware, does not have any teaching that would agree with what Chad has said is equal to ungodliness and satanic (women as pastors). Some have interpreted Paul's further teachings as such, but Chad has put those words in as a lump sum "Gospel" when they are not.

The same holds true for men, who are also human. Usually.

Men love quoting the teachings of Paul. Women love quoting the teachings of Jesus. Think about why this is, and how Jesus treated women.

UPDATE: I wrote on this topic further, at CRN.info.

UPDATE 2: Here's a link to the A/G position on women in ministry.

UPDATE 3: The original "Old Truth" post has changed in that it appears that the comments have been removed. Or something -- something seems amiss. So, don't go there expecting to see any of this anymore. I did, however, save a fairly late version of the post in case you want to argue that I made it all up. I am more than happy to share it with you if you so demand.

----------------------------

Note on links to the Old Truth blog: The owner of the Old Truth blog has seen fit to play a few re-direct games with links coming from domains and blogs he does not like. Lone Prairie fits this category. In order to access those web pages, you can follow the directions given here, or simply right click those links, copy the URL, and past in a new browser window. What's even worse is the stupid gimmick when an Old Truth link is clicked through from CRN.info: it takes you to this dumb page on the site, supposedly for "humor day", though I don't get the humor. It's an annoying and childish thing that has little place in serious internet discussion or netiquette, particularly among Christians, but there's little that can be done.

Labels: christianity, guest blogging, women