Toilets and Sinks

This blog entry is dedicated to my father, my future husband, all single non-fix-it-people, everywhere, and Greg Stirling. Yesterday my sink wasn't draining well. After careful inspection, I unscrewed the drain, pulled it out, and stuck toothpicks down there to try and remove whatever was clogging it. I wasn't able to pull much out, so I figured it was just too deep and I'd need to find an alternative solution. Well, I'm pretty sure that's what Drain-o is for, but didn't know if they had anything like that, down here. I know I could have asked somebody, but I decided I'd try one more thing, first. So I took a guess at the most abrasive cleaning product I owned, thinking that maybe if I poured lots of down the sink, its very harshness would eat away at whatever was down there. Well, my sister dumped all of my real cleaning products when she was down here and replaced them with Shakley, and even I could surmise that natural corn and sunflower oils weren't going to cut it. So I settled on Clorox. Well, there I was, pouring bleach down my sink, when I felt my socks getting wet. I looked down, and to my horror, bleach was rushing out of cupboard! Forgetting the typical purpose of this abrasive cleaning agent (and thereby not taking off my jeans, first), I immediately got down on my hands and knees to investigate the problem under my sink, which I discovered to be a pipe that was no longer attached to the sink basin. It had a rubber ring around it that looked like it was supposed to suction on, or something, so I tried pushing really hard to make it stick, but to no avail. Concluding that the bleach must have eaten away at the adhesive, or something, I decided it was time to call in the troops. Looked apologetically at Rosie the Rivitor flexing her muscles on my wall, I admitted defeat and called up Greg Stirling. Surprisingly, the fix-it-man-hero-of-all-single-missionaries-in-Villarrica didn't really know what to tell me, except to call one of our church's elders, Elvio, who was a plumber.

So today Elvio came over. While waiting for him to come, I decided to clean my bathroom sink, because I thought I may have him look at that, too, as it also seemed to be draining slowly. Well, whenever I clean my sink, I just go ahead and clean my toilet at the same time. But today, when I lifted up the seat, I was horrified to find that it was very dirty. How embarrassing! And in my defense, I really do clean my toilet, regularly; I have too many visitors not to. There are events that occure in all of our lives which undermine our greatest attempts to maintain pristine undersides of our toilet seats. I, however, am without men or little boys in my life to regularly leave the seat up and in so doing, inadvertently alert me of such events, should they occure. Anyway, Elvio rang my bell before I'd had time to use the brush in the basin, so I just closed the lid, left the blue stuff in there (because I was going to finish the job after he left), and answered my door. Well, the sink fixing, itself, was a humiliating affair that only a single woman living in a foreign country can fully comprehend. I showed him the drain (which was still laying on the counter), and tried to explain how I'd dumped the bleach down and somehow pulled the pipe out from the sink basin. As another side note, you know how stupid you feel when trying to explain to an auto mechanic what's wrong with your car, when you don't know the words for all that stuff under the hood? Well, try it in another language. I'd tried to prepare myself by looking up words I knew I'd need, beforehand, and writing them on my white board for quick reference, but I still forgot some and sounded even more blundering helpless woman idiotlike than what I already was. Can you even imagine? So without going into great detail, I guess you're supposed to clean the pipes under your sink, somewhat regularly, and you shouldn't need to take out the drain, itself. I don't know if that's a general homeowner thing all over the world, or just here, but I hadn't done it. So there I sat while one of our church elders cleaned 18 months worth of my gunk out of the pipes. How humbling. Then, as if the whole ordeal hadn't been bad enough, he then showed me the solution to my leaking pipe problem: screw the drain back in. I guess the pipe is held up by the screw that I'd removed with the drain. I was SO embarrassed. Then Elvio asked where my bathroom was so that he could dump the dirty sink water crap (no puns intended). Oh my goodness, I can't even begin to express the depth of gratitude I felt to the good Lord, in that moment, as I lifted my freshly cleaned seat to pour the sink water down. I will conclude this blog with an excerpt from my prayer journal, tonight:

"Oh, Lord, You are so gracious and kind. There was absolutely no reason why You would have had me clean my toilet just before Elvio came, except to spare me embarrassment upon embarrassment. Oh, how You love me. Thank You. Thank You. Thank You. Oh, how I love You. Thank You."

Amendment to Image of God

I feel like such a geek posting this on myspace. But bear with me, if only for my own conscience' sake. Today while I was running, I was struck with large amounts of guilt. "Why?" you ask. Good question. I just did something that annoys the living daylights out of me when other people do it. I asserted something as if it were fact when it was really just one possible interpretation of the truth, and didn't acknowledge that to my readers. So… sorry.

Here's the thing. We're really far away from the time and culture of the Bible, right? So while we totally believe it to be true in its original intention, there's quite a bit of gray as to what that original intention really was. So biblical scholars take (among other things) what they know of the language/grammar (the words that were actually written), the language/ style (the way it was written- "was this meant to be a fairytale, poem, or documentary?" for example), and the historical context (what was going on when the words were written that would give us clues as to why they were written) to figure out what they think the original authors (both human and divine) were really trying to say. That's why you can have 10 different interpretations of the same verse of scripture. And while I certainly think there are some interpretations that do a much better job of combining these things (grammar, style, and context), I want to make sure that I never communicate that one of my interpretations of something is the way it should be interpreted. Period. And I want to always encourage those who haven't gone to Bible school to remember this as well- there are lots of interpretations. That's why it's so important to read from different points of view and then draw your conclusion based on the EVIDENCE, as opposed to what you WANT the scripture to say (which is what we're ALL tempted to do; don't let anyone tell you that he or she does it differently or without this temptation!). Does that make sense? Oh, I hope so.

Anyway- about my thing on Genesis 1-2. This gets a little heady, but my last few blogs have been light and funny, so I think I've earned the right to be somewhat intense, this time. That said, read at your own risk:) Here's what we know for sure (well, kinda- I'm not an Old Testament scholar and I don't know Hebrew. But this is what others have told me we know for sure):

*** Except for Gen 1:27, where the English says "male," the Hebrew word that the author chose to use for "man" throughout Genesis 1-2 is kind of like how we use "man" in English- it can either mean a male member of the human race, or it can refer to mankind in general. My interpretation is based on the general use of the word, in which case, it would be translated: So God says "Let us create humankind in our image, in our likeness, and let humankind rule... So God created humankind in God's image. In the image of God, God created humankind. Male and female God created humankind." Grammatically, it works.

*** Culturally, it's very possible that the authors of Genesis were familiar with the Babylonian creation story, and emphasized certain things in the Jewish story to contrast that of the Babylonians. If you want to ask me about this, I can tell you more (or you can type Babylonian creation myth into your search engine), but here are the basics that I think Genesis was trying to get across (as it relates to my study of the image of God).

1. The world was created directly through the powerful Word of God in the context of order, peace, and goodness. According to the Babylonian story, the world was created through violence and competition, by the dismembered corpse of a destructive and chaotic goddess.
2. Humans were created in God's image, and exalted as stewards of creation/ coworkers with God. According to the Babylonian story, humans were created by the gods when the gods discovered their need for menial laborers. So the gods killed one of their own (who happened to be a conspirator with the destructive, chaotic woman god whose body they'd already used to create the physical world), and used his blood to create humans.
3. Women were also created in God's image, and the first man recognized the first woman as being part of himself and necessary to himself in fulfilling his purpose in the world (notice that God's mandate to rule was given to both the man and the woman, and the emphasis on "male and female God created them"). In the Babylonian story, the female god is the chief enemy of the other gods, and represented all of the chaotic and destructive forces in the world. Kinda makes you hope you're born a boy, doesn't it?

*** OT law protects women. Yesterday I happened to be reading Deuteronomy 21-22, and was struck by the extent to which the law protected women. Typically, when a city was conquered, the men would take and rape whomever they wanted, on the spot. Hebrew law mandated that captive women be taken home, cleaned up, given new clothes, and left alone for a full month to grieve their homeland. Only after that, could the man go in and make her his wife. If he didn't like her, after that, he could free her from the marriage, but could not sell her as a slave (which was common practice), because "you have dishonored her" (meaning she wasn't just property to be had, which was the common view). Now, I sure am thankful that I wasn't a woman in that time, so I'm not supporting the forcible taking of brides. However, I sure would rather be taken by a Hebrew, under Hebrew law, than by anybody else (Deut. 21:10-14). The following chapter, then, gives laws about the consequences of having sex with an unengaged virgin (you must marry her), or an engaged virgin/ married woman (you'll be killed). Again, I'm impressed by Hebrew law's insistence that woman are not just for the enjoyment of men, but must be properly married, protected, and provided for in order for men to have the right to have sex with them.

***Jesus' example exalts women. He talked with the Samaritan woman (big no-no), had many women as followers, appeared to the women FIRST after His resurrection, and treated women with dignity and compassion on a number of occasions.

*** NT teaching frees women. Paul says that men and women are equal in Christ (Gal 3:22, 1 Cor 11:11-12). In the Greek, he refers to Phoebe as a deacon, NOT a deaconess, as our English versions translate (Rom 16:1). But it also teaches that while all are free and equal under the law of Christ, all are also responsible to voluntarily and joyfully submit to one another (Eph 5:21) and bring honor to the name of Christ. Furthermore, we are to humble ourselves before one another and not compete for equality or superiority (Phil 2:3-16, Gal 5:13-26). Therefore, while women were truly exalted, free, and equal under Christ, they were not to flaunt their freedom in ways that demonstrated arrogance, belittled men, or brought disrepute to the gospel. For example, ALL WOMEN of NT times wore head coverings and had long hair except for prostitutes. All women. Not just in the Church, but in the culture, at large. It showed that they were under the authority of their husbands and were women of propriety and purity. Prostitutes, however, and women of ill-repute wore short hair and did not wear head coverings. So it appears that the women of the Corinthian church took Paul's teaching on equality to heart and began refusing to wear the head coverings. There is no doubt that Paul teaches freedom and equality, in Christ. But freedom and equality does not give anybody the freedom to bring disrepute to Christ's name or harbor a spirit of arrogance/ rebellion. I believe this is what Paul was addressing in 1 Cor 11.

OK. Hopefully I'll be able to rest, now, guilt-free. In conclusion- I wasn't there in the garden, that day. I know that may come as a shock to those of you who think I'm pretty perfect, but it's true. Furthermore, I don't know how everything went down. But I do know that both men and women were created in His image, and I suspect that it has something to do with the complexity of the Godhead (aka. the trinity), and the perfection and beauty of God that could only be hinted at through our own diversity. However, I must also confess that there are New Testament passages that clearly speak of differences in position and rank/ authority between men and women (esp. 1 Cor 11, but also Eph 5 and 1 Tim 2:8-15). In addition to that, I think there's something to be said for the distinction between man, who was created from dust and given life through God's breath, and woman, who was also created by God but through the man's rib. I can't figure it all out. But I feel pretty confident that we were all created in God's image with some beautiful differences between us (that reflect GOD!), and then something happened to screw things up. I don't think the fall created the differences, but rather the way our selfishness and arrogance (mis)interprets those differences… blah, blah, blah. Thanks for reading. Talk to me. Maybe someday I'll write a book with your opinions and insights in itJ I certainly know of no other topic with which I've wrestled more than the original creation and design of men and women, the fall's devastating effects on our relationships, and Christ's subsequent redemption through which we can once again experience the fullness of love.

The Image of God in Gender

The Bible begins with a good, creative, beautiful, imaginative, wise, fun, all-powerful God who created the world. It says that all of God's creation was good, except for one thing. Mankind. God had purposed to make man in God's image, but it was impossible to achieve with the creation of only one person. No one person could ever bear the full image of God, because God was too complex to be expressed in a single human personality. So the perfect man that God had created, perfectly capable, confident, creative, and strong, did not and could not bear the full image of his complex Creator. So God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and removed one of the man's ribs. With it, God formed the female man. When the male man awoke and saw her, he recognized that he could only be complete by being together with her. He was not only missing her rib, but also her softness, gentleness, and sensitivity, complexity of feeling, simplicity of trust, and absolute fulfillment in serving others.* These things were as foreign to him as the rib that was now in her body. They had origin in him, but found life in her. She was a part of him, and he would never be whole without her. For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife. And when the Two distinct personalities, the male and the female, came together for the first time, something entirely new was created. The two had become One flesh. And it was this new creation, this new man, this marriage of the male and female, the representation of masculine and feminine personalities of God, that could finally reflect God's full image. And with this new creation, this new man which bore the full image of God, God saw all that had been made, and it was very good.



* One of my frustrations with much that is written on the differences between men and women is the simplistic suggestion that any human being can possess 100% masculine or 100% feminine characteristics. Instead, I believe that all people are created with a unique combination of the two, which makes us bearable and functional as human beings. If any man was without some amount of gentleness and compassion, which are seen as being feminine traits, he would be a fearsome creature, indeed. And if any woman were completely devoid of rational thought, she would be annoying and helpless beyond imagination. So I see different traits of masculinity and femininity on a spectrum, with all human beings possessing some of each. For this reason, I get frustrated with books that generalize "men" and "women" because they make it so easy to both wrongly assume things about others, and feel like less of a man or less of a woman because of areas where God has blessed us with traits generally found in the opposite sex. So no individual is without aspects of masculinity and femininity, though gender certainly determines whether a person tends towards the masculine or the feminine.

** This interpretation is just that- one possible interpretation. I added an amendment to this blog, if you want more details.