My secret(?) life

My life is pretty much an open book. Anyone is free to read however much they like.

Case in point?

I’m a blogger.

Do I really need to say more?

But honestly, I share the events of my life, the thoughts of my head, the longings of my heart, and my journey with Christ within this blog. Body, soul, and spirit–you get it all right here on bekahcubed.

Well, mostly.

You can see quite a lot of me here. But I don’t share everything. Some things, I keep a little more hidden.

Did you know that I like stalking people online? Well, I do.

**Disclaimer: I don’t stalk in a creepy way, really!**

I like to read people’s blogs. I like to see what they’ve written and what’s been written about them. I like to see their Facebook pages. I like to see their wall-to-wall’s with their friends (even if those friends aren’t also my friends.)

**Disclaimer: I don’t do this all the time, honest. But when somebody comments on somebody else’s status and the comment intrigues me, it’s fun to click on the little wall-to-wall link and see the entire conversation.**

I don’t have any problem with people internet-stalking me right back. I have made no attempt to hide myself in the online world. Google “bekahcubed” and you’ll get me–a whole bunch of me. You’ll see my blog, yes, but you’ll also see the other blogs I’ve commented on. You’ll likely see old message board posts from my early high school days. You’ll see an awful lot.

But if you’re a friend of a friend but not my friend yourself, you won’t see any wall-to-walls on Facebook. I only let my friends see what I put on Facebook.

I love it when other people do the friend of a friend thing. I really enjoy reading my friends’ back-and-forths with others. But I’m keeping my Facebook life secret, thank you very much.

Why do I have this secret(?) life?

Actually, that’s kind of a funny question. I have it because I teach at the same University I graduated from. I have siblings and friends in the same University I teach at.

And undoubtedly, some of my friends are friends with my students.

I don’t have a problem with letting my students see my life–but something has to be private. I have to have somewhere where I can tear out my hair about grading or rage about something or the other related to the University without my students hearing.

I’m very cautious, even on my private Facebook account, to never share anything that would make someone else look bad. I’m not griping about students on Facebook. But it’s good to have just one place where not just anyone can access–where I can unload about my overflowing e-mail inbox or my embarrassment over a personal classroom bungle without crossing student/teacher boundaries.

Yes, it’s a small thing, but I’ve got to have SOMETHING that’s kept secret.


What does your emoticon mean?

Facebook smileys

Emoticons. We use them all the time. Some people like to have them converted to smileys (see above). I prefer that they stay as ASCII characters.

Even when they’re ASCII, we generally know what they mean.

:-) means happy face or smiling
:-( means sad face or frowning
;-) means winky face or winking
:-D means grinning
:-P means sticking out your tongue

Emoticons are supposed to help us express emotion. They’re supposed to add some non-verbal information to our text conversations.

And they do. But sometimes they don’t really give enough information. Because yes, the above descriptions are true–but what do you mean by them?

I use a limited emoticon library, but what I use has very definite meanings (and not really exactly what they look like.)

What my emoticons mean

:-) means I’m happy, content, all is well
:-( means I just wrote something that I find sad
;-) means “inside joke alert”, that not everybody will get this but I think you will
:-P means I’m teasing you

What do your emoticons mean?


Argument

Nothing gets me going like a good argument. I just love to argue. Let’s find something we disagree about–no matter how minute–and let’s duke it out.

I imagine my family tired of it on occasion–but they accepted that I enjoyed verbal sparring and they engaged me on that level.

Daniel used to needle me by taking a masochistic stance–which I would return with a feminist point of view. (Don’t freak out here–my feminism is of quite a different breed than this world’s.)

Timmy’ll suggest that Marx had a point and we’ll argue over economics and politics and the running of nations.

Dad and I will find some way to argue our two sides of the predestination/free will debate (I’m a hair more Calvinist than he.)

In early high school, I was part of an online community of homeschoolers. Some people frequented the just-for-fun type message boards, but I hung out almost exclusively in the debate board. We argued free will and predestination, creation and evolution, age of the earth, contraceptive use (there were quiverfulls among us), politics, abortion, and whether Christians should celebrate Christmas. I was in my element.

In my senior year of high school, I did a one year Bible program because I’d already finished my high school requirements. One of my classmates liked arguing as much as I so we’d argue with each other or play tag-team as we argued with a teacher. Eschatology, election, the role of the church–these were some of our favorite topics. And we argued them with vigor.

Arguing invigorates me. It makes me feel alive. My mind is active, my mouth (or keyboard) is active. I’m engaging the topic. I’m thinking as I’m speaking. There’s nothing that can put a spring in my step like a good argument.

But somewhere along the way, I learned that many people aren’t like me. They don’t like to argue. They don’t like to disagree. They don’t see arguing as a mental game, an exercise for the brain. They see it as a battle, an attack on who they are and what they believe.

Or sometimes they like to argue–but not for arguments sake. They are convinced that their view is the only correct view and nothing will change their mind. What’s more–they’re awfully bent on changing my mind. Which often means that they won’t actually engage my ideas–they just fire off with their own.

I’ve learned this of other people and it has pushed me underground as an arguer. I don’t want to attack people. I don’t want them to think I’m a bad person because I disagree with them either. So I keep quiet about certain controversial subjects. I try not to provoke too many arguments.

But that doesn’t mean I don’t still love to argue. I still love a good argument–especially one with Scripture references and proof-texts flying back and forth.

But since I’ve realized that others’ attitudes towards arguments differ from my own, I’ve tried to be really selective as to who I argue with. I try to only argue with people who see it as a mental workout, as I do–people who recognize the inner Irenic (peacemaker) amidst the outer Polemic (fighter).

But then, every so often, I’ll start arguing with someone, and when I’m done, I’ll wonder “Did that get taken the right way?”

Did I read that person wrong when I thought they liked this as much as I?

Did I misestimate the depth of their feeling or attachment to this topic, such that my challenge might be seen as an attack?

Did I misjudge this person when I figured they would understand that I agree with them even as I’m disagreeing?

Because I only argue with people I respect. I only disagree with people I agree with. I only argue with people I care about and admire.

But what if they don’t know that and misinterpret my argumentation?

What if, in doing what I so enjoy, I hurt a dear brother or sister? What then?

And what am I to do with Paul’s admonition to Titus?

“But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.”
Titus 3:9-11

Is that what I do, who I am when I argue? Do I argue in an unprofitable and useless way? Am I divisive, warped, and sinning in loving argument?

Do I major on minors and let petty things become points of contention?

I don’t know. I don’t know.

But I so love it when someone challenges me and we can mentally and verbally spar. I just want to be sure that in doing so, I am encouraging them (as arguing so often encourages me) rather than tearing them down. I want to be sure that I’m bringing them life (as I feel more alive in the midst of a good argument) rather than bringing them death. I want to be sure that I’m demonstrating my respect for them (as I feel respected when someone engages my mind) instead of making them feel disrespected. I just wish I could be sure.

But I can’t. And that’s what worries me.


Putting my feet up

My first ever job was as a dishwasher. I was nine years old and my pastor’s wife–who also happened to be our across the street neighbor–wanted someone to wash dishes on Fridays as she prepared baked goods to be sold at the local Farmer’s market.

We started at eight or nine in the morning and kept going until at least four or five in the afternoon. Malinda made sticky rolls, braided Danishes, angel food cakes, sponge cakes, and more. And I washed dishes and wrapped baked goods.

We were on our feet for most of the day. Malinda chided me for my lack of appropriate footwear and lent me an extra pair of Birkenstocks (my feet were already size huge, so hers fit me just fine). And once an hour, we took five minutes to put our feet up.

We’d go to the kitchen table, pull out a chair, and…lay on the floor with our feet on the chair.

It was purposeful, intentional, and utterly relaxing.

We’d been working hard. Our feet were tired. They needed a break. We needed a break.

And so we took one. Not a break to laze about and gossip, but a break to rejuvenate our bodies for the next task.

Undoubtedly we looked silly, an older woman and a young girl, lying on the kitchen floor with their feet on a chair. But we were catching our breath, relaxing our bodies and minds, and letting the fluid leave our feet.

I don’t wash dishes all day anymore. I’m rarely on my feet. The need to literally put my feet up occurs only rarely. But I wonder if I’ve forgotten what Malinda was trying to teach me.

It is good to take a break. Not to be lazy or idle–but to rest. I may not be on my feet anymore, but I sit at my computer for hours on end. Perhaps I need to get off the computer for five minutes an hour and rest my eyes. I read for an extraordinary amount of time each day. Perhaps I need to rest from that. I think for a living–studying, preparing lessons, grading papers. Maybe I need to rest my mind every once in a while–and take time to just be.

Instead of running as hard as I can and burning myself out, maybe I need to learn how to take purposeful breaks, truly relaxing breaks. Maybe I need to re-learn the lesson Malinda taught. Maybe I need to put my feet up every once and a while.


Recap (February 28-March 6)

On bekahcubed

Book Reviews:

Photo Albums:

  • Christmas 1985 at Grandma and Grandpa Cook’s house and at Grandma Menter’s house

On the web

Laugh out loud funnies:

Books for the TBR list:
Is this for real? Am I actually emerging from this week with only one additional book on my TBR list? This is amazing!!

  • The adoration of Jenna Fox by Mary E. Pearson
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–I like YA fiction. This one sounds like it’ll be a deeper and more complex read then most–but it sounds good!

News to take note of:

  • People with purpose don’t get Alzheimer’s.
    This is good news for a goal-oriented but family medical history heavy gal.
  • The odds for a successful marriage
    Wanna be married for a good long time? The odds are best for highly educated couples from two-parent families who married after age 26 but did not cohabit prior to marriage. It also helps if they have kids after marrying. Looks like the odds are in my favor (assuming I hold off on marrying for another year–but I think that’s probably a reasonable assumption!)

Thought-provoking posts:

  • Justin Buzzard on processing life like David in Psalm 3. I’ve been doing a bit of this Sight–>Belief–>Remembrance–>Resolve–>Prayer–>Praise/Assurance stuff in the last couple of months.
  • Staying Faithful when life gets worse: Reflections on the life of Joseph

    Sometimes faithfulness to God and his word sets us on a course where circumstances get worse, not better. It is then that knowing God’s promises and his ways are crucial. Faith in God’s future grace for us is what sustains us in those desperate moments.

Videos worth seeing:

  • Validation: a short film
    And by short film, I really mean film. This is 16 minutes long, but it’s a FANTASTIC romantic comedy.

    HT: Collateral Bloggage

Pseudonymous

I’ve often contemplated taking on a pseudonym–or at least a pseudo-pseudonym.

Maybe I don’t want people to know whether I’m a guy or a girl. Enter the pseudonym “Bek Menter”. It’s unusual, yes, but definitely more masculine than feminine. It’d work great if I wanted to be a professor or something. That’s been my thought, anyway.

Of course, I’m already representing myself online by the pseudonymous “bekahcubed”. Admittedly, that’s less of a pseudonym than a nickname–the name my father gave me to shorten the “bekah bekah bekah” I’d been calling myself. But that is a blogger identity, a journal blogger identity no less.

But what if I don’t really want to be a professor or something? What if I’m not sure journal blogging is all I want?

If I’m to be a serious writer, a thinker, I should have a thinker’s pseudonym. In this case, I would do well to take the cue of a thousand thinkers before me and go by my first and middle initial. Think about it. C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul, G.K. Chesterton, C.J. Mahaney, J.I. Packer, A.W. Tozer, C.H. Spurgeon–the list goes on and on. Yes, if I’m to be a serious thinker, R.M. Menter must be my moniker.

But that’s where the difficulty comes in. What do we actually know all these fellows as? We refer to them as Lewis, Sproul, Chesterton, Mahaney. And I don’t want to be Menter.

I was born a Menter and I’m proud to be a Menter. Our family took three generations to come up with sons–and two Menter women retained their names while their husbands took on the Menter name. But now that Menters have found out how to have boys, there are plenty to keep the name alive. I have four brothers and nine male Menter cousins. They can carry on the Menter name for posterity.

My aunt kept her name–and that’s just fine. My great-aunt died still a Menter. I know not the fates of the generations of Menter women before (apart from the two illustrious women who kept their names in Germany to keep the family line going.) I, however, would rather not keep the Menter name. I’d rather surrender it to be a missus, to be known by new name, to build another lineage.

I want a new name. I’ve toyed with Bek Menter, with bekahcubed. But now I feel the need for a new name. RM Menter, unfortunately, is not going to cut it. And I fear that taking on a true pseudonym will not satisfy me either.

Because I fear that all my name play, my pseudonymous jangling, is less a longing for a new name alone but a longing for a new life. A life where my role is wife. A life where my role is mother. A life where I proudly bear the name “Mrs. Blankety-Blank”.


Your Kingdom Come

Notes on Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck’s
Why we Love the Church:
in praise of institutions and organized religion

Chapter 1: The Missiological (Jesus Among the Chicken Littles)

The two groups that talk the most about bringing the kingdom are dominionist/theonomist types and the emergent/missional crowd. Dominionists think, “All of creation belongs to Christ. It must all submit to His kingly rule.” So they want to change laws and influence politics and exercise Christ’s dominion over the world. On the other end, missional types think, “Jesus came to bring the kingdom of God’s peace and justice. We must work for shalom and eliminate suffering in the world.” Fascinating–one group goes right wing, seeking to change institutions and public morality, and the other goes left wing, wanting to provide more social services and champion the arts.

Both camps have a point, but both are selective in their view of the kingdom, and both have too much “already” and not enough “not yet” in their eschatology.

~Why we love the church, page 39

I am not incredibly familiar with emergent/missional theology or emphasis. I have observed some themes through my blog reading, but have not done any in-depth exploration of missional or emergent ideas. So my thoughts on the missiological argument against church are written based on DeYoung and Kluck’s description of missional goals and the little that I have observed from web-surfing.

According to DeYoung and Kluck, the missional perspective says that the goal of the church is to bring Christ’s kingdom of peace, justice, and blessing to the world. They do this by emphasizing community and global transformation. This movement is strong on social justice, on taking a political and personal stand against racism, poverty, exploitation, etc.

I am much more familiar with the dominionist/theonomist perspective, as I belong (and have always belonged) to a conservative Christian congregation in which many believers desire to change the world through legislating Christian morals.

Each of these groups has a goal: bringing the kingdom of God to earth. And that is the goal of God. Jesus taught us to pray “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” God wants His kingdom to come on earth.

This raises a couple of questions for the believer. First of all, what does God’s kingdom on earth look like? Second, what is the role of the believer in seeing God’s kingdom come on earth?

To the missional/emergent believer, God’s kingdom come means there is no inequality and mercy reigns supreme. To the dominionist/theonomist believer, God’s kingdom come means there is no immorality and justice reigns supreme.

And, according to both of these groups, the role of the believer in seeing God’s kingdom come on earth is to affect social and political change.

But is this what God’s kingdom on earth looks like? Is this the role of the believer in seeing God’s kingdom come on earth?

I don’t think anyone can read Scripture without agreeing that God’s kingdom is a place of peace and morality. This is clear. But does that mean that if peace and morality exist in a certain place, that God’s kingdom has come there?

Does the lack of inequality mean that God’s kingdom has come? Does the lack of immorality mean that God’s kingdom has come?

No. Because while God’s kingdom might be characterized by lack of inequality and immorality, God’s kingdom is not defined by lack of inequality and immorality. God’s kingdom is defined by God’s rule. God’s kingdom comes on earth when individuals and communities submit to God’s gracious rule. It is possible that a community can be moral without having submitted to God’s gracious rule. It is possible for a community to have equality without having submitted to God’s gracious rule. And in those cases, the community might be nice, but it isn’t God’s kingdom come.

So what should the role of individual Christians be in seeing God’s kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven? I would argue that our role is to be witnesses to the greatness of God. Our job is to testify to the power and love of Christ, and to call all peoples to submit to His gracious rule. Apart from submitting to God’s rule ourselves, our primary focus in seeing God’s kingdom come on earth should be evangelism.

Now, this is not to say that Christians should not be eager to affect social and political change. It is good to seek to feed the poor. It is good to seek to eliminate abortion. These are good things. But what does it matter if the world is composed of well-fed, moral citizens–who still die and go to hell? What does it matter if the world has feel-goods and moral standards because of Christian social action–but God is never glorified in their eyes? If that is the result of our “kingdom building”, then our “kingdom building” has been for nothing. For God’s kingdom is not built of governments, laws, and social programs. God’s kingdom is built as Christ becomes king of individual hearts.

We should be giving drinks of water to children in Christ’s name. We should be looking after widows and orphans. We should be concerned with moral standards. James 1:27 says that this is pure and undefiled religion. But we should also be proclaiming the glories of God in salvation. Either by itself is something less than pure religion.

DeYoung’s comment couldn’t be more true: “Both camps have a point, but both are selective in their view of the kingdom, and both have too much ‘already’ and not enough ‘not yet’ in their eschatology.” It is worthwhile to value social justice. It is worthwhile to value morality. But the kingdom is not social justice and morality. The kingdom is Christ’s rule–and the result is social justice and morality. Both views seek to put the cart before the horse–trying to obtain social justice and morality without the gracious rule of Christ in the hearts of people.

So let us pray for, let us seek, let us work towards seeing the kingdom of God come on earth. But let us remember that the kingdom of God comes not from social programs or political activism, but as people and nations submit to the gracious rule of God. Let us take on, as our true role in kingdom-ushering, the job of inviting peoples and nations to submit to the gracious rule of God through world evangelization.


Thankful Thursday: Miscellaneous

Thankful Thursday banner

I’m thankful for peanut soup in lab.

I’m thankful for sweater-weather outdoors.

I’m thankful for a ride to my car.

I’m thankful I didn’t lose my purse.

I’m thankful that my teaching went well.

I’m thankful for Sabine’s compliments.

I’m thankful for my students.

I’m thankful that there’s sunshine.

I’m thankful for an interlibrary loan book in today (Why we love the church by DeYoung and Kluck).

I’m thankful for getting some grading done.

I’m thankful for a fundraiser being canceled (sorry for those of you who were really looking forward to it.)

I’m thankful that God is.

I’m thankful that He invites me into relationship with Him.

I’m thankful for rest for my soul (even in turmoil.)


Christian Conspiracy Theory?

Yesterday, I linked to this article on Facebook (HT: Vitamin Z.) The article discusses the “Endagered Species” advertising campaign sponsored by the Georgia Right to Life.

Endangered Species Ad

I later saw this same article linked to by another person, who had a rather different take on it than mine. This other person suggested that this was a “Christian conspiracy theory” and an example of playing the “race card” while overlooking the true underlying theme–poverty.

I couldn’t help but mull over the suggestion. Is an injustice being done to black children in particular, or is poverty the only thing we should be worried about in this issue?

Yes, the data behind this campaign and the information shared in this campaign is fodder for conspiracy theorists. And some are taking hold of it in that way:

As the Los Angeles Times reports, “An increasingly vocal segment of the antiabortion community has embraced the idea that black women are targeted for abortion in an effort to keep the black population down.” Similarly, from The New York Times: “Abortion opponents say the number is so high because abortion clinics are deliberately located in black neighborhoods and prey upon black women. The evidence, they say, is everywhere: Planned Parenthood’s response to the anti-abortion ad that aired during the SuperBowl featured two black athletes, they note, and several women’s clinics offered free services — including abortions — to evacuees after Hurricane Katrina.”

“Planned Parenthood is out to kill blacks,” the conspiracy theorists would say.

I don’t really believe that. While there probably are some people who want to wipe out the black race, I do not believe this is the goal of the average (or even not so average) Planned Parenthood employee. But regardless of intent, Planned Parenthood is killing a disproportionate number of black babies. Regardless of intent, they are doing a remarkable job of carrying out their founder Margaret Sanger’s eugenic image of utopia.

In the public health world, we get worked up over things that disproportionately kill one population over another. We get worked up over sex differences in morbidity from heart attacks. We get worked up over racial differences in morbidity from diabetes and related disease. We want to know why these disease discriminate.

A huge goal of public health in the US is to eliminate health disparities. We don’t want death to discriminate. We don’t want one subset of our population to be dying off at a disproportionate rate.

So we work to understand and modify the factors that lead to these health disparities. Of course, much of our work is made more different because genetics plays a role in many diseases. Abortion is a different matter. There is no innate inborn difference between blacks and whites that causes black babies to be aborted at a higher rate. The factors responsible for these deaths are much more straightforward. People are killing those babies. And people are killing more black babies than white babies.

This should not be.

If we were to learn that people were giving out free baby formula in a black neighborhood–and that kids were dying because the baby formula was tainted with melamine (as in last year’s China scare)–that wouldn’t necessarily mean that people were intentionally killing black babies. But they were doing it nonetheless. Maybe the distributors of the free formula intended the distribution to be a mercy (and I believe many abortion providers believe that they are doing their clients a service by “relieving” them of another mouth to feed.) But their good intentions don’t change the fact that they’re killing babies in general and black babies in particular.

And if someone wanted to stop babies from dying, I think they’d focus on the population that is having the most children die. They’d say “Black people, pay attention. Your babies are dying from this tainted milk. Take note. Adjust your lives accordingly.” That’s what we do in health promotion–we target the population that’s most at risk. Because that population would do well to know the risks–and to say to the well-intentioned killers “Thanks, but no thanks. Take your free formula elsewhere. We don’t want you killing our babies.” Just the same, I think it is valuable for blacks to be awakened to the silent genocide of their children (whether said genocide is a result of design or happenstance.)

To use the campaign’s example, let’s think about endangered species. Say there’s a certain species of animals that is being destroyed by, say, fertilizers being used on farmland. The population of this type of animal is dwindling. The farmers aren’t intentionally setting out to kill this animal, it’s just a consequence of what they’re doing to help them achieve their goals. But when an environmentalist becomes aware of this, they lobby for endangered species status for the animal and seek tighter regulation of the fertilizers that are killing it.

That’s what we do for animals. But when it is babies–precious black babies–whose population is dwindling and who are being threatened, are we to sit back and say “but they’re not intending to kill black babies”? No way! We should be outraged by the inequalities and injustice we see and should seek to do all we can to stop the slaughter.

And what can we do to stop the slaughter? I think the Georgia Right to Life is making a good first step. They’re raising awareness–letting people know that black children are being killed by abortion at appallingly disproportionate rates. We can also pray and vote and work towards increased regulation and eventually closure of the clinics that perpetuate this murder. We can work to change the circumstances that make people feel that it would be better to kill their babies rather than let them live–circumstances like poverty, promiscuity, and lack of male responsibility. We can pray that God would change the hearts of people. Yes, we can pray that God would change the hearts of politicians, but also of abortionists, of people who seek abortions, and of the silent masses who just don’t care about the brutal genocide of the unborn–those who don’t care because it hasn’t touched them.

We must awaken to the fact that the slaughter is real–killing just under half a million black babies a year. This should be a startling statistic, a cause for alarm, a call to action.

It doesn’t matter how well-intentioned the murders are–or whether they have anything specifically against blacks or not. The point is, they’re killing blacks–and killing a lot more blacks than they are whites. And if we are a church who is truly interested in social justice, we should be ringing the alarm and calling for and working toward an end to this silent genocide.


Ridiculously busy

Why do I do things like this to myself? Why do I let myself get this busy? Why do I procrastinate to the point that I have days packed this full?

I don’t know why. But I do.

For instance, on today’s agenda?

  • Statistics homework
  • Statistics class
  • Prep tomorrow’s nutrition lab
  • Review nutrition student’s outline
  • Write quiz for tomorrow’s nutrition lab
  • Grade nutrition lab papers
  • Post practice test for Nutrition and Metabolism students
  • Statistics lab homework
  • Statistics lab
  • Shop for Rock Solid
  • Assemble fruit skewers for Rock Solid
  • Present on fruits and veggies to 2 groups at Rock Solid
  • Catch up on Experiencing God homework
  • Attend Experiencing God (as soon as I’m done with Rock Solid)

Just a minute–what am I doing on the internet right now?