Matchmaker, Matchmaker, I Don't Want a Match

It wasn’t until I read Cathy Lynn Grossman's USA Today blog post Tuesday that I knew there was a word for them: Yentas, the people (usually women) in your life who pry about your love life (or the absence thereof) and, for better or worse, try to set you up with someone. The term is Yiddish slang (think Yente, the matchmaker in Fiddler on the Roof), but let’s face it, every culture has its yentas. And American evangelical culture is no exception.

Are evangelical yentas helpful? In my experience, they only serve to exasperate.

I’m 23 years old and a recent graduate of a private evangelical college where people paired off as quickly as its suburban rabbit population reproduced. I graduated without an official significant other, and thus became prime yenta target.

Fresh from the holiday season, I’m sure many Christian singles have had recent encounters with yentas. Surely the yentas in our lives mean well when they about our love lifes and try to set us up with a “nice young man” or “sweet Christian woman.” But I ask the evangelical yentas out there: Why do you do what you do?

One of my suspicions is that our culture is overly romanced. It provides a narrow view of what romance is: something that is passionate and limited to the young or those in the bloom of a new relationship. Perhaps when a woman’s era for romance is over, a yenta looks to younger women to vicariously enjoy romance, just as she might turn to romance novels or chick flicks.
Or perhaps most yentas are just nosy people. I give the benefit of the doubt to the yentas in my life and suspect that most of them genuinely care, but genuine care isn’t always genuinely helpful. In my experience, yentas only add unnecessary pressure.

Other than an evangelical college, the place I feel the most pressure to find a significant other is church. In my experience, most singles’ groups aren’t there for support, but exist as places where the “leftovers” or “unmarrieds” can find each other. Evangelicals are typically great proponents of family, so it’s no wonder there is pressure to get hitched. But I have never felt pressure regarding my singleness from my extended family, which is by and large not evangelical, or the culture at large. I don’t think this is necessarily because American culture is anti-family, but because it embraces singleness as a valid way to live — something the evangelical church hasn’t always done.

Asking about someone’s love life and even setting them up aren’t bad things. But when I am asked about having a boyfriend or the lack thereof, I prefer to be asked about it in the context of the rest of my life — my job, my goals, and my life in general. When dating is the first thing I’m asked about, I can’t help feeling that I should feel like an old maid.

Stephanie Krzywonos is acquisitions editor at Tyndale House Publishers in suburban Chicago.

LaVonne's Top 40 Books of the Decade

Just as surely as the first week of January brings new diet books, the last week of December brings Top 10 or Top 100 lists. These lists are way too late to inspire holiday shopping, so they must serve another function. Perhaps they are a quick way to come up with copy when magazine editors would rather be partying. Perhaps these editors know that, at the end of a year or a decade or, not so long ago, a millennium, a lot of us feel the need to examine, sort, take stock, evaluate.

Since 1997, when I made a long commute bearable by reading, I've been keeping a list of every book I read. Before then, when people asked if I'd read any good books lately, I could assure them that I had — but I had no idea what they were. Now I can prime myself before attending social functions where that question might come up. I decided it would be fun to look at my lists for this decade and choose a favorite novel and nonfiction book for each year.

I quickly realized I could not limit myself to two excellent books a year, so I decided to allow two in each category. The criteria: I had to remember what they were about (not so easy: I was amazed at how many titles I did not remember at all). They had to be interesting — no moral uplift or literary elegance unless I truly liked the books. And they had to stand alone: I did not include books that are part of series, even though that meant leaving out some of my very favorite authors (I listed 10 of them on my blog).

The subheads refer to my year of reading, not the year of publication. Most books were published a year or two before I read them — I waited for the library to acquire them, or for the paperback edition to come out. Some books were published whole generations before I discovered them. For each year, the first two books are novels; the second two are nonfiction. My mother made me read one nonfiction book for every novel I read, and I haven't entirely lost the habit.

2000
John Mortimer, Summer's Lease. An enjoyable romp through Chiantishire by the creator of Rumpole.
Wendell Berry, Jayber Crow. Novel of place, character, and love of the land.
Leonard Shlain, The Alphabet vs. the Goddess. Who knew that literacy and feminism are inversely proportional?
Andrew Greeley, The Catholic Imagination. Up with Grandma, down with the hierarchy.

2001
Jonathan Franzen, The Corrections. Sprawling family saga; good read even if Oprah liked it.
Mary Doria Russell, The Sparrow. Jesuits in space.
Andrew Solomon, The Noonday Demon. It's about depression, but it isn't depressing. Especially the part about the chicken.
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, A Midwife's Tale. Reconstruction of New England life 1785-1812, based on an actual diary.

2002
Zadie Smith, White Teeth. London immigrants and natives crazily intersect. How could such a young author know so many people so well?
Ann Patchett, Bel Canto. Bumbling terrorists hold a houseful of party guests captive.
Caroline Knapp, Pack of Two. Memoir: the bond between dogs and humans.
Lauren Winner, Girl Meets God. Memoir: growing up as a Jewish-Christian bookworm.

2003
Michael Cunningham, The Hours. Repositioning of Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway. See also the movie — of Mrs. Dalloway, not of The Hours.
Ian McEwan, Atonement. Like McEwan's later novel Saturday, shows Mrs. Dalloway influences.
Nora Gallagher, Things Seen and Unseen. Memoir: through the church year in an Episcopal parish.
Lewis Smedes, My God and I. Gentle but starkly honest memoir from the late great theologian.

2004
D. L. Smith, The Miracles of Santo Fico. Sweet story if you're in an Italian mood.
Elizabeth von Arnim, The Enchanted April. The movie is excellent, and so is the book — also if you're in an Italian mood, as I usually am.
Maria Rosa Menocal, The Ornament of the World. Once upon a time, Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived together in relative harmony in southern Spain.
Azar Nafisi, Reading Lolita in Tehran. Memoir: book clubs can be subversive.

2005
Mark Haddon, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. A can't-put-it-down novel about a boy with Asperger's. Really.
Khaled Hosseini, The Kite Runner. A thrilling story and a parable about Afghanistan.
Temple Grandin, Animals in Translation. Grandin, an animal behaviorist, uses her experience with autism to explain how animals think.
Tracy Kidder, Mountains Beyond Mountains. How a determined physician revolutionized health care in Haiti.

2006
Vinita Hampton Wright, Dwelling Places, and Nicole Mazzarella, This Heavy Silence. Sensitive novels about financially and emotionally troubled farm communities.
Julia Child, My Life in France, and Ruth Reichl, Tender at the Bone. Memoirs by foodies. Child is fascinating; Reichl is hilarious.

2007
Dave Eggers, What Is the What. Fictionalized account of Sudanese refugees in the U.S.
Khaled Hosseini, A Thousand Splendid Suns. Even better than Kite Runner; this one is about Afghan women.
Judith Jones, The Tenth Muse. Memoir: the editor who discovered Julia Child and many other major chefs/food writers.
Michael Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma. Fast food, commercial organic food, local food, and food you find and shoot. Pollan is such a good writer that you don't have to have prior interest in his topic to enjoy his books.

2008
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Half of a Yellow Sun. A novel based on the Biafran war in the late '60s.
Aravind Adiga, The White Tiger. Lower-caste life in India, chillingly humorous. I liked this better than the movie Slumdog Millionaire.
Dorothy J. Gaiter and John Brecher, Love by the Glass. Memoir by the married couple who write the Wall Street Journal's wine column.
Peter Brown, The Body and Society. How Christians from the first through fifth centuries viewed sex. (Thank God for Jewish rabbis and for common people who didn't write books but kept on loving one another. See my review here.)

2009
Mary Ann Shaffer and Annie Barrows, The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society. World War II story for book lovers.
Elizabeth Strout, Olive Kitteridge. A collection of interwoven short stories about a bristly character you might come to appreciate. My review is here.
T. R. Reid, The Healing of America. Should be required reading for anyone before they express any opinion about how to reform American health care. My Christian Century review is here.
Gail Collins, When Everything Changed. How American women's lives have changed since 1960. Here's my review.

I've enjoyed looking at other people's lists, like the New York Times's "100 Notable Books of 2009." I've read only two of this year's notables: When Everything Changed (see above) and Losing Mum and Pup (funny memoir). Thinking maybe my score was low because some of the books haven't made it to the library yet, I checked the 2008 list. Alas, I had read only one: Home (fine novel). 2007, maybe? Hey, I read six of the novels, though none of the nonfiction (perhaps I should try How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read).

But that's missing the point, isn't it. We read what we enjoy. We share lists because some of our friends enjoy similar books. I hope you'll tell me about books and authors you especially like. 2010 should be a good year for reading.

The Top 10 Her.meneutics Posts of the Year

2009 was also an exciting first year for the CT women's blog! Thanks especially to all our writers, who went the extra mile to stay on top of the news cycle and deliver timely commentary. And many thanks to you, our readers, for leaving what the CT editors consider some of the most thoughtful (and least derogatory) comments of all the CT blogs. If there are topics you'd like to see covered in the coming year, please e-mail blog editors Katelyn Beaty (kbeaty@christianitytoday.com) or Sarah Pulliam Bailey (spulliam@christianitytoday.com).

(10) "Why Do We Love Susan Boyle?" by Sarah Pulliam Bailey // Comments: 19
If you haven't seen the viral video of Susan Boyle yet, take a few minutes to watch it.
It's worth it.

(9) "The Case for Male Circumcision," by Christine A. Scheller // Comments: 114
Why the arguments from sentiment and sexual pleasure don't cut it for me.

(8) "Never Been Kissed," by Susan Wunderink // Comments: 31
The Virgin Lips movement, and shades of ‘how far is too far?’

(7) "When Serving Makes You Sick: An Interview with Anne Jackson," by Katelyn Beaty // Comments: 35
Popular blogger Anne Jackson has witnessed hurting church leaders from an early age.

(6) "A Good Man Is Hard to Find," by Ruth Moon // Comments: 83
Early marriage sounds great — as long as there are mature Christian men willing to initiate.

(5) "The Duggars: The Anti-Gosselins," by Laura Leonard // Comments: 27
When reality TV marriage actually works.

(4) "Juanita Bynum Returns to Conference Stage," by Alicia Cohn // Comments: 21
Self-declared prophetess emerges after domestic abuse court case and TV circuit.

(3) "Dancing Down the Aisle," by Laura Leonard // Comments: 31
What a viral wedding-dance video can teach about the meaning of marriage.

(2) "The Other Miss California Controversy," by Katelyn Beaty // Comments: 91
Carrie Prejean might have stood up for Christian sexual ethics by skipping the Miss USA pageant altogether.

(1) "Jon and Kate Plus a Lot of Bitterness," by Lynn Roush, guest blogger // Comments: 75
The Gosselins need to confess their sins to Christian friends rather than to the TV camera.

Other notable posts of 2009:

"Jenny Sanford Offers Forgiveness After Husband's Affair," by Sarah Pulliam Bailey // Comments: 32

"The Day We Let Our Son Live," by Ellen Hsu, guest blogger // Comments: 23

"Adoption: Single Christians Need Not Apply," by Julia Duin // Comments: 83

"The Persecuted Rifqa Bary?" by Katelyn Beaty // Comments: 43

"Neda: More Than Her Death," by Christine A. Scheller // Comments: 6

Consider the Vampire

Last week I found myself trying to explain the Twilight phenomenon — the books, the movies, Stephenie Meyer, and Robert Pattinson — to coworkers over lunch. It seems the whole thing can be summed up in one word: obsession. Bella and Edward, the two main characters, obsess over each other. Readers obsess over the books. Fans even obsess over the actors who portray the main characters in the film adaptations. The one obsession that seems to be missing: Christians have remained surprisingly silent on the wildly popular series. As the last breaths of the Harry Potter outcry echo faintly in the distance, Christians haven't had a whole lot to say about Meyer's story of vampires and the girl who loves them. Some have come out against them (Chuck Colson and Al Mohler) and others have embraced them as a tool to promote evangelism and abstinence.

Yes, there’s an abstinence message to be found, technically. Author Stephenie Meyer, a devout Mormon, keeps her characters intact until their wedding day. But their reasons for abstaining are purely practical—Edward fears that his super-strength (a characteristic of Meyer’s vampires) will crush or possibly even kill Bella if he relinquishes his carefully-maintained control around her. But, as Carrisa Smith notes in her review of Twilight at Christ and Pop Culture, it’s unlikely a teenage reader might connect with this reasoning and therefore decide to apply the principle to her own life. Last week I spoke with Beth Felker Jones, an associate professor of theology at Wheaton College and author of Touched by a Vampire: Discovering the Hidden Messages in the Twilight Saga. It was this obsessive nature of the book (and its fans) that first drew her to the books and inspired her to explore more deeply its "hidden messages." Its view of sexuality, she found, was far from helpful. What drives this story and compels readers is the prolonged, unconsummated eroticism that develops as romantic love completely consumes the individual lives of Bella and Edward.

It's easy to dismiss the entire phenomenon as nothing more than teeny-bopper fluff. It's mostly young girls who read them, and the impassioned arguments for the books tend to run along the lines of "But Edward's so dreamy!" The writing has been criticized and the books compared to romance novels for the preteen set. But to do so would be a grave error, in my opinion. Even its harshest critics admit to having been drawn in: “The lure of the books is so strong, even for feminist media critics (I devoured them more quickly than vampires catch their prey), that it's disturbing to resurface and ponder how retrograde Meyer's world is,” writes Sarah Seltzer in the Christian Science Monitor. When something resonates so strongly with so many people, even those who fundamentally disagree with its basic premises, we must take notice. For many, these stories are providing more than just entertainment--they are meeting a spiritual need (or at least attempting it). The need to be loved--unconditionally, sacrificially, and by an ethereal, perfect other--this is the the powerful driving force at the root of the Twilight obsession. This is a universal desire, and one created by God to direct us back to to him--the only one who can ever meet it. So it might do good to ask, how is the book channeling the desires it stirs in readers?

As the books are beginning to receive more critical attention from scholars, they are finding strong Mormon themes. Jones mentioned the idea of eternal family, and salvation through the family model, as one idea normalized and glorified in the book. John Granger wrote a fascinating article "Mormons Vampires in the Garden of Eden" for Touchstone magazine about the subversive allegory of the Mormon faith. It is a truly fascinating read for anyone who has read the books, or is looking for a critical interpretation that takes seriously both the text and its implications on faith. He interprets the books as "an allegory of one gentile seeker’s coming to the fullness of Latter-day Saint faith and life." He sees moments where Meyer pushes back against the Mormon church's view of gender roles, though he concludes that, "Mrs. Meyer’s books are as popular as they are because, like the LDS beliefs that are the substance of her meaning, they reflect and reinforce conventional thinking regarding sexuality more than they challenge it."

Girls are eating this stuff up. But what is it, exactly, that they are eating? If "conventional sexuality" resembles what we find in Twilight, and if Twilight is in fact shaping a young generation's view of love, sex, and what it means to be female (and male), this is more than worthy of our attention. We probably don't need to worry that girls will immediately run to their nearest Mormon temple, but we should worry that they might someday remain in an emotionally abusive relationship because they believe their partner is just trying to express his love (Jones notes that Bella and Edward's relationship displays nearly every characteristic of an abusive relationship). We should worry that they will learn to view sex as only a pleasure to be deferred, or marriage as the ultimate goal of life and, perhaps, even the road to salvation and eternal happiness.

The next time you find yourself in a conversation about the Twilight phenomenon, resist the temptation to gush (if you're a fan) or dismiss (if you're not). See it as an opportunity to engage others' views on gender, sexuality, religion, and yes, even vampires.

When Stem Cell Research Isn’t Embryonic

At the conclusion of another year, perhaps we should take a moment to take note of progress in adult stem cell research. Two compelling stories that caught my eye in just the past month took most of 2009 to make headlines as success stories.

This month in Australia, 20-year-old Ben Leahy, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (a disease of the nervous system) walked away from his wheelchair after a treatment earlier this year involving his own adult stem cells. Family Research Council describes the treatment and provides a list of other successful, similar treatments for patients with Multiple Sclerosis. According to Leahy’s doctor, Colin Andrews, “the risk of death [for the procedure that] was at around 8 percent several years ago” has improved to a risk of less than 1 percent. As doctors in Sydney continue to use the method, we can expect the research to improve.

Also, in Britain, a rock climber named Andrew Kent was in danger of losing his leg after multiple breaks and infection, until doctors used a mix of collagen and his own adult stem cells to “glue” the bones back together. This month, six months after the procedure, the support system was removed, and his doctor said, “after 18 months his bones will have healed completely.” Kent should be able to climb again.

Where the mainstream media reported these stories, the articles often omitted a reference to the “stem cell treatment” as adult rather than embryonic.

However, if you know anyone personally who could eventually benefit from advancements in stem cell research, as I do, you realize quickly how important it is to emphasize the distinction. Research suggests that adult stem cells are producing more demonstrable results than embryonic stem cells have so far, despite the fact that, in the United States, a majority of the funding (including federal, since President Obama eliminated restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research earlier this year) and publicity goes into embryonic stem cells.

While celebrities such as Michael J. Fox (Parkinson’s disease) and Christopher Reeve (quadriplegic) helped popularize stem cell research as an important cause, both of their fundraising foundations emphasize the importance and merits of embryonic, rather than adult, stem cell research. This promotes one-sided awareness. Embryonic stem cell research concerns many Christians because of its ramifications for the humane treatment of the cells of “unwanted” babies. There are arguments for both sides of the issue because so many unborn cells exist in our country today, and much speculation exists about the potential to use these “surplus” cells. Many people celebrated the fact that this month also brought the first human embryonic stem cell lines approved for research under the new laws. However, these so-called extra cells are fertilized embryos, and therefore an early stage of human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are commonly extracted from the patient’s own bone marrow, as in cases of Leahy and Kent.

Christians often accept an unwarranted reputation for being science-phobic because we tend to sound the alarm and raise red flags where issues of conscience are concerned. That’s all the more reason why we should celebrate stories that prove how successful science can be when scientists choose methods that respect life. Stem cell research is important, and stories of its success are cause for thanksgiving to hundreds of people in need of improved living standards.
If God has given us the capacity for invention and imbued us with his own creative spirit (as I believe he has), consider that scientific advancement, united with methods that respect life, can be an answer to prayer.

Alicia Cohn previously interned at Christianity Today magazine. She has written for Her.meneutics about Christmas, Sarah Palin's Going Rogue, Anne Graham Lotz, parental rights, journalists in North Korea, Juanita Bynum, the Breast Cancer Bible, and The Stoning of Soraya M.

The Real Problem with Mary's Baby Bump

This Christmas you may hear a sermon or two comparing today's unwed mothers with a well-known one from the ancient Mideast: Mary, the mother of Jesus. Reflecting on the alleged public shame Mary endured as an unmarried mom-to-be, we hear, the single moms in our midst deserve our special compassion and care. (Christianity Today's most recent issue featured Bob Smietana's reported piece on churches' support for single moms.)

Without discounting the crucial need to support single moms and their children and stand against the shame that our culture can dish out to them, Lynn Cohick, associate professor of New Testament at Wheaton College, suggests a different read of Mary’s story. In her recent book, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians, she researches the historical context of marriage and motherhood in the first century A.D., and believes that Mary did not experience shame during her pregnancy. Cohick explains.

//

Mary was betrothed to Joseph, which was a legally binding arrangement in the Jewish culture. All that awaited the couple was the wedding. If they engaged in sexual intercourse with each other, that was not seen as a violation of any cultural norm. Later rabbinic writings allowed that a future groom who had sexual relations with his bride-to-be at her father’s house was not guilty of immoral behavior.

If pregnancy occurred before the wedding, this was not a problem because the parentage of the child was secured. What is shocking is that Mary is pregnant and Joseph knows he is not the father. The problem is not that a betrothed couple had sex, but that presumably Mary had sex with another man — she committed adultery.

This explains Joseph’s reaction to divorce her, for that was the legal remedy when faced with infidelity during the betrothal period. And as Matthew tells us, Joseph wanted a quiet, “no fault” divorce (Matt. 1:19). This probably reflects the current perspective on divorce that was promulgated by at least one group of Pharisees, the Hillelites. They argued that Deuteronomy 24:1 should be interpreted that a man must divorce his wife for infidelity/adultery and also for any matter that seemed right to him. Another group of Pharisees, the Shammaites, held that Deuteronomy 24:1 taught that only for adultery could a husband write divorce papers.

In the end, however, Joseph decides against divorce after an angel assures him that Mary is virtuous and that the baby is from God (Matt. 1:20-25). In the narrative’s internal chronology, his decision to divorce and his change of heart are not common knowledge; no one in the village would have suspected that he was not the child’s father. He stays with Mary, and thus the child, Jesus, would be considered his son unless the couple chose to speak about the mysterious work of God in their lives, as portrayed in Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives.

I do not mean to diminish Mary’s strength of will and faithful obedience to God. She was well aware that Joseph might disown her and publicly denounce her if he suspected her of adultery. But that never happened. Mary and Joseph raised Jesus in a home that looked to all the world like an average Jewish family. Nor do I want to minimize the plight of unwed mothers. My point is only that Mary probably did not face the specific struggles and pain associated with unwed mothers today.

Those who stress that Mary bore the shame of an illegitimate birth must also wrestle with the portrayal of Mary during Jesus’ life and ministry. How would we expect people in the first century to treat a woman who had an illegitimate son? Presumably in some way as an outcast, however that might be understood.

Ben Sira 23:22-36 [an extra-canonical work from the 2nd century B.C.] speaks of the long shadow of dishonor and disregard that illegitimacy casts. But Mary participates in social events such as the local wedding in John 2. Servants listen to her, which might imply that she is family and/or has clout in the group. Either way, it does not seem likely that they would pay attention to someone who every guest at the wedding presumably would be ignoring. Again, Mary is described as traveling regularly to the Temple (Luke 2:41-52). Luke describes a time when Jesus got separated from his parents. In the narrative, Joseph and Mary are traveling in a group large enough that Jesus’ absence went undetected for an entire day. This picture does not suggest that Mary was a social pariah. Instead, these sketches show her participating fully in the social and cultural network of Jewish villages in Galilee and Judea.

Finally, some argue that Matthew is emphasizing Mary’s marginality by highlighting four immoral women in Jesus’ genealogy: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba (called the wife of Uriah the Hittite) (see Matt. 1:2-17). However, it is arguable that all four have histories of faithfulness in the face of troubles. Tamar is credited with doing the right thing in holding her father-in-law to account for failing to look after her. Ruth is repeatedly praised for her obedience to her mother-in-law and to Boaz. Bathsheba was taken from her home by King David, and the text places no blame on her for his misdeed. Only Rahab is identified as a prostitute, but in saving the Hebrew spies and siding with Israel, she redeemed herself and her family — she is a heroine of the story. It remains unclear to me what motivated Matthew to compose his genealogy as he did, but we can rule out the suggestion that the list reinforced Mary’s suspected sexual impropriety.

When I think of Mary in the days leading up to Jesus’ birth, I see a woman who was very aware of God’s character in blessing his people, keeping his promises, and lifting up the humble. In her Magnificant (Luke 1:46-55), which echoes Hannah’s song of praise (1 Sam. 2:1-10), Mary reminds us that God acts mercifully and redemptively, and that sometimes it takes eyes of faith to see that.

This blog post has been adapted from Women in the World of the Earliest Christians (Baker Academic).

The Trouble with Depicting Jesus

When the New Community Bible first released in 2008, it sold 15,000 hardcover copies in a few short weeks.Yet the resulting hue and cry over certain aspects of the Bible, the first to be produced by Indians, for Indians in simple English, has resulted in a few revisions before the second edition went to print this November.

Why the controversy? Open a copy of the Bible, produced by the Society of St. Paul in Mumbai, and you’ll see no changes to the text. But the accompanying illustrations might look a bit different: the Holy Family, for example, is depicted as poor Indian villagers, with Mary wearing a sari and a bindi, and Joseph wearing a turban and loincloth.

Some Protestant Christian groups have argued that the artwork and the references throughout (such as to Mahatma Gandhi and the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred Hindu text) do not faithfully represent Scripture, while some Hindu groups have complained that the Bible will lead to illegal conversions in a country whose Christian population is only 2.5 percent.

I’m not going to argue that depicting Mary in a sari is historically accurate — obviously it’s not. But I would enjoy a browse through the religious images in the books and homes of the Christians who are criticizing this Bible.

In my own home, my daughter’s favorite Bible is the Precious Moments Storytime Bible, which depicts a doe-eyed, Caucasian Jesus surrounded by equally doe-eyed followers. My own feelings on Precious Moments artwork aside, the artist’s vision of Jesus isn’t any more accurate than one envisioning Mary wearing a bindi on her forehead.

Remaking Jesus to look like us isn’t a new phenomenon. Any number of famous Madonna-and-child paintings depict the Holy Family looking about as historically accurate as I look fastening a head covering over my red hair to play Mary in my church's Nativity play. Mary in a sari isn’t any further from what the actual Mary probably looked like than I am.

So why the fuss? Should we limit ourselves to artistic visions that show Jesus as he most likely looked in 1st-century Palestine, or is it spiritually acceptable to show some artistic license as long as our intentions are pure?

As we ready ourselves for Christmas, take a look at your family's creche or Christmas cards. What does Jesus look like to you?

Gimme that Christian Side Hug

The “Christian Side Hug” video is going viral, but don’t take it too seriously.

The video quickly loses its humor if you watch the whole four-minute spoof. Yes, it’s a spoof, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Before the spoof was outed, though, The Huffington Post and other bloggers took it seriously. “I'm sick to death of these lunatic Christians giving [everyone] who follows the teachings of Christ a bad name,” write LindseyLou on feministing.com.

It’s a little disconcerting that anyone would take it seriously: The rappers sing that “no front hugs and no kissing” are allowed and includes a repeated line like “Democrats shouldn't be in Congress.” As Steve Johnson wrote, the line, "When I hug people, I leave room for the Holy Spirit," could be the giveaway.

The Tribune columnist spoke with lead performer Ryan Pann, the 23-year-old Californian who wrote the song.

"We think it's hilarious because some people think (the video) is serious," said Pann, reached at The Father's House, a Vacaville, Calif., church that sponsors the Encounter Generation Conference, an annual Christian youth gathering at which the video was shot. "It's not a mockery of the faith," Pann emphasized. "It's a mockery of the act of the Christian side hug."

It’s unclear why the authors put the video on the Internet. A joke in context at a Christian youth conference is very different from performing in front of the average YouTube watcher.

Satire is hard to do well in any situation, but satire directed at the Christian audience seems to be particularly difficult. For example, comments on the “Disclaimer” of the Wittenburg Door satire site often immediately begin discussing reasons the satire fails. It’s difficult to join in the fun if someone is poking fun at beliefs you might hold sacred. To some extent, that’s part of the territory of satire; if you’re not making someone uncomfortable, you’re probably not very funny.

Do you think the Christian side hug video is good satire? What would good satire directed at Christians look like?

'Love Thy Neighbor' Shows Up at Copenhagen

The Copenhagen Climate Conference (COP15) began December 7 and will continue through next week. World leaders are gathering to negotiate carbon emission protocols that will replace the 1997 Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012. Robust proposals are coming from African countries, along with Tuvalu and other low-lying island nations, which have already felt the negative impact of climate change. Tuvalu is leading the charge for the Alliance of Small Island States, who want binding proposals to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5C. Their argument is that, as non-industrialized countries they have not burned fossil fuels nor contributed to global climate change, yet are among the most vulnerable to the consequences of rising sea levels.

Christians are not united on the best response to climate change; neither are nations (see this BBC report on where countries stand on Copenhagen). Some are skeptical about the science (especially, perhaps, in light of British and American researchers' hacked e-mails on how to manipulate data to show human-caused climate change), as well as about the United Nations as a governing body capable of overseeing global policy on climate change.

But one organization, 350.org — founded by Bill McKibben, an environmentalist and Christian who has written for CT and Books & Culture — is standing in support of the most vulnerable countries, calling for protocols in line with current scientific consensus. They want to see a fair, ambitious, and binding deal that includes helping developing countries develop while also bringing CO2 emissions down to 350 parts per million, the level determined safe by the scientific community. 350.org has helped mobilize over 5,200 actions in 181 countries that gathered in cities, churches, schools, parks, and businesses and collectively raised support in an effort to get the world’s leaders to commit to robust climate change policies.

Christians who support efforts by groups like 350.org speak of Christ’s mandate to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to protect their well-being and capacity to flourish. Such love may require that we change lifestyle habits, pay more for energy, and support efforts to assist the development of green energy both here and in industrializing nations.

Maybe we can’t stop climate change. But a large number of geologists, biologists, and climatologists think we still can (see this study from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Called to be a steward of creation, I’d rather err on the side of action, and stand in support of those already feeling the effects of climate change. One thing I know for sure: God loves life, and as God’s representative one of my responsibilities is to help guard the flourishing of life.

That may mean I have to give up some autonomy and submit my will and self-interest to a larger community who depends on the same atmosphere as I do. More may be asked of me than I am comfortable giving. But I want to be willing to trust democracy, and a global community looking out for the well being of this planet's inhabitants. I have a better chance of extending God’s love to others if I am also vested in protecting their well-being, and the well-being of my great-grandchildren, and theirs.

Church vigils are being held this weekend as faith communities sound their support for the Copenhagen talks and pray for leaders gathered there. Regardless of our perspective, we could all pray that leaders will be wise in their deliberations, listen well, and count the cost of inaction as carefully as they count the cost of action.

Christmas Cooking with Nigella (or Jesus)

Christmas baking has begun, and I do a lot of the traditional cookie baking for my family. Peanut butter star cookies, sugar cookies, and Ritz cracker cookies are on my list (as usual) this year, but I keep an eye out for new things to try, which is why I noticed Nigella Lawson’s Nigella Christmas: Food Family Friends Festivities containing both recipes and guest-entertaining advice.

In her introduction to the book, Lawson refers to the pagan holidays that took place around Christmastime, writing that Christianity cleverly centered our celebration of Jesus’ birth during this time of year “to reassure [pagans] that their fun is not going to be taken away." That’s not a new thought, but Lawson also writes, "the Christmas we celebrate in our kitchens is not the Christmas that is celebrated in church."

Whoa. It kind of sounds like Lawson is drawing a line between “home Christmas” and “Christian Christmas,” and the latter is not coming across very…fun. In an interview with the Minnesota Star-Tribune, Lawson explained that although she adheres “to the Judeo-Christian morality,” she feels that “the Christmas rituals of the home are, even if not based around faith, essentially an act of good faith." So I guess faith can be fun, just not the church-y kind.

Keeping to the theme of good faith, I stopped to think about my own “Christmas rituals of the home.” For me, baking cookies is nothing like the soft, musical TV ads where the young, dressy mom shares her mixing spoon with children whose eyes glisten from the reflection of Christmas lights. In fact, there are ingredients involved that could end up being not fun.

Funny how modern culture sets us up to miss an imaginary ideal, because this is how it goes for me in reality: I might be alone in the kitchen, trying to wash all the dishes as I use them, eating too much cookie dough, or hurrying to finish in time for dinner. I get tired of rolling out balls or cutting out shapes and just settle for bar cookies and then unfortunately they don’t bake the same way as the regular recipe. My four-year-old niece likes to help, but being entertaining means everything takes longer. Sometimes I’m out of a key ingredient—usually one of the basic ones—and then I need to track down my mother to ask advice on substitutions. By the time the cookies are cool and put away, I need a back massage.

I look forward to it every year.

And why wouldn’t Jesus be in that kitchen right alongside me? See, there’s a truth, or a larger purpose for the celebration, behind Christmas—and, yes, behind my cookie-baking tradition—that was there before it became a hyper-commercialized, fattening, money-making proposition.

On TV, a Christian Christmas might be a hazy shot of everybody holding up candles in church. In reality, Christmas can mean shopping, baking, wrapping, singing, decorating, partying, and volunteering. Perhaps Christians should not be known for compartmentalizing Christmas but for celebrating harder than anybody else. I like the idea behind the Advent Conspiracy—both a book and a movement by the same name—that promotes, among other things, more seasonal giving. The idea is a reminder that Christmas, literally, celebration of Christ, has meaning to Christians. That makes it our holiday, but in the same way that my holiday baking looks different from what I see on TV—because it’s real—a “Christian Christmas” should be closer to reality.

Baking cookies and sending out cards are opportunities (not obligations) to bless people by allowing God’s love to spill out of my heart (Romans 5:5). This should be the modern product of Jesus’ birth and sacrifice. These “rituals of the home” tend to be the opportunities that most arise in my life, but whatever rituals we do to celebrate Christmas, they don’t need to be divided from the celebrating we do in church. Someone else might get up early in order to afford a thoughtful gift on sale. Peace might accompany wisdom by keeping a budget (whether money or calories). Someone might demonstrate love signing up for one less event for the sake of family, or by going to one more party for the sake of a friend. It’s not about the activities themselves, because they are just a byproduct of where our heart is at (Matthew 12:35).

Here’s the challenge I give myself, especially at Christmas: Don’t limit the celebration of “Christian Christmas” to just one part of life; more importantly, don’t allow our culture (or the ads on TV) to do it for you.

Alicia Cohn, who took the top photo, previously interned at Christianity Today magazine. She has written for Her.meneutics about Sarah Palin's Going Rogue, Anne Graham Lotz, parental rights, journalists in North Korea, Juanita Bynum, the Breast Cancer Bible, and The Stoning of Soraya M.

Baby Dies Aboard United Airways Flight: A Response

My mind is still reeling from the news that a 4-week-old infant was unable to be resuscitated after the baby stopped breathing on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Kuwait. The plane made an emergency landing in London, but the child could not be revived.

Breastfeeding isn't the culprit, experts were quick to state (to my relief) when the news hit the press. Dr. Ruth Lawrence, past president and founder of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, was very clear in her interview with ABC News: "Breastfeeding doesn't smother babies." Instead, Lawrence pointed to the fact that the mother fell asleep while nursing.

Janet Fyle of the Royal College of Midwives agrees that breastfeeding shouldn't be blamed. The true culprit, she says, are the airplane seats itself, because they make it so easy to fall asleep. "It's not breastfeeding that's the problem," Fyle stated. "It's the chair.''

Pardon me for quarreling with the experts, but this mother is being blamed for falling asleep? On a transatlantic flight? With a 4-week-old?

What nursing mother hasn't fallen asleep while nursing her child? Back before the days of studies and guidelines and research and panels, back when the experts were primarily mothers, most women probably fell asleep every night while nursing their children. Many still do. But we're not supposed to, because sleeping while holding a baby is taboo right now, along with letting babies sleep on their stomachs, or using forward-facing car seats, or feeding babies honey before age one.

We have expert-approved guidelines for every possible aspect of child-rearing, and I appreciate the insight afforded by such guidelines. But I wonder if they make it easier to blame parents when the unthinkable happens. The recommendations are ever-increasing and ever-changing, and that's not even getting into the fact that on most issues, experts disagree. Parents are stumbling under the weight of all these "shoulds," and when tragedy strikes, these recommendations morph into pointing fingers of accusation.

A mother was nursing her baby on an airplane and fell asleep. When she woke up, the child wasn't breathing. Now she's facing inquiries and investigations, in addition to suffering a tragedy that my brain will short-circuit on before it even tries to imagine.

Bloggers have been positing theories of their own. Maybe the baby was covered by a blanket. Or the baby was too young to be flying in the first place. The mother shouldn't have taken that trip/fallen asleep/nursed her child. The passengers around her should have noticed sooner/woken her up/been able to save the baby. All these opinions hold a common thread: someone, something, has to be blamed.

But is it possible there's no blame to be had? Sometimes people die when they are very, very tiny — and sometimes no one is to blame. If you can't handle that, it's because you weren't supposed to. Human beings were created to live eternally; our minds and our hearts were never designed to handle the unspeakable loss that is death. It goes against the very fabric of who we are, and who we were created to be.

Reeling from this pain that we were never intended to know, we look for a source of blame — as if having a cause, a culprit, could somehow make it better. And when a baby dies, the person who carries the brunt of that blame, deservedly or not, is the mother.

Somewhere, right now, a woman is mourning the loss of her child. Several women, actually, facing the pain of cancer or SIDS or a tragic accident. I pray for each and every one of these women, that our God of mercy would be their comfort and source of hope. And I pray that they will be surrounded by people who will hold them, love them, and grieve with them, people whose first thoughts will be to help the mothers, before assuming they are to blame.

The Joys of a False Positive

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released recommendations on breast cancer screenings November 16, stating that too many women were given unnecessary tests based on an initial “false positive” mammogram. The task force discouraged women ages 40 to 49 from regular screenings, saying they were not necessary until age 50. As cancer groups and women’s health organizations have decried the new guidelines, the task force clarified its position last week, saying that women can have mammograms whenever they want, but that they are more effective for women ages 50–74.

A recent “false positive” myself, I cannot tell you how happy I am to be in such a group. My first mammogram was suspicious, and the second did not clarify findings, so a third was done. A radiologist reviewed the results with me right away, showing me the trouble area (near the armpit, where 50 percent of breast cancer is found). My physician said that while the new spots could simply be more calcification clusters, their location and strange appearance raised concerns. So a biopsy was done, and — praise God — no cancer was found.

While the task force’s new protocols treat false positives as a negative thing — resulting in unnecessary anxiety and more money spent on unnecessary tests — I see false positives as the result of due diligence in preventive health care. But since my field of expertise is biblical studies, not health care, I won't get into the details of health care strategy. Instead, when I read the report a few weeks ago, I began thinking about the phrase “false positive,” which sounded like an oxymoron. And my mind turned to the “false apostles” that Paul writes about in 2 Cor. 11:13. These preachers taught a different gospel, disrupted the Corinthian church, and defamed the imprisoned apostle’s work. The “super apostles” are false because they masquerade as true but are not.

Likewise, a medical false positive gives the impression of being the real thing but in the end is not. The difference is that we want a false positive from our doctor, while we do not want false apostles in our churches. So the analogy didn’t quite work.

Then I thought of the biblical passage in which Paul mentions those who preach Christ out of envy and ambition. The Philippians were seemingly upset about this group, who were preaching Christ out of rivalry against Paul. In other passages (Gal. 5:16–26; Phil 2:12–15; Eph. 4:17–5:20), Paul directly lays out the ethical and moral codes for all believers as they live out their Christian life through the Holy Spirit. But here (Phil. 1:15–18), Paul’s response is instructive: He waves aside the Philippians’ worries and dismisses the envy of the rival preachers. What matters, says Paul, is that Christ is preached. The fact that the other preachers’ motives are false does not negate their positive impact for the gospel: “But what does it matter?” he writes. “The important thing is that in every way . . . Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”

Paul is fine with a “false positive,” because in the end, it's the results that matter. So, too, in the case of mammograms; would that all women could be fortunate enough to have a false positive. The imperfections of science and the idiosyncrasies of each woman’s body means that false positives can never be avoided entirely. Instead, perhaps we should embrace the false positives with humility, and remember that it is the end result, our health, that matters most.

Lynn Cohick is professor of New Testament at Wheaton College, and author most recently of Women in the World of the Earliest Christians (Baker Academic).

Should Christians See 'Precious'?

After reading Camerin Courtney’s 3½-star review of Precious for Christianity Today Movies, I knew I wanted to see the film. Well, kind of.

Alongside other reviewers, Courtney made it clear that the film — about an obese, illiterate African American teenager who is HIV-positive and pregnant by her father for the second time — is often unbearable to watch. Filmmaker Lee Daniels and executive producers Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry were committed to capturing the rawness of their source material, poet Sapphire’s 1996 novel, Push. (NPR has helpfully posted an excerpt from the book, though some of the language may be offensive). Sexual abuse and violence are pervasive themes throughout the film, which earned five Independent Spirit Award nominations last week.

Claireece “Precious” Jones’s nickname is, of course, ironic. In others’ as well as her own eyes, she’s the antithesis of one who is esteemed, cherished, or beloved, as the American Heritage Dictionary puts it. Growing up in Harlem in 1987, Precious refers to herself as the “ugly black grease to be washed from the street.” Her parents have no doubt led her to conclude thus. Her father, who we never see except when he is raping her, has abused Precious since she was a toddler; her mother, a bitter welfare recipient who spends her days chain smoking in front of the TV, inflicts on her daughter constant verbal and physical assault, telling her at one point, “I should have aborted your a**.” Until attending an alternative school, where her teacher, Ms. Rain, has the effect of dignifying those around her, Precious is not so much a person with agency as an object to which terrible things are done. And perpetual poverty is the backdrop for her family’s story, telling its inhabitants that it would be a lot easier if they just didn’t exist.

If reading this description makes you flinch, it just means you still have a beating heart. Aware of Precious’s visceral punch before seeing it, I was still tempted more than once to leave the movie theater two weeks ago. And for some reviewers, the film’s commitment to shocking viewers with its subject matter diminishes its value. Esteemed critic Armond White excoriated filmmaker Daniels for exploiting popular stereotypes of blacks: “Not since The Birth of a Nation has a mainstream movie demeaned the idea of black American life as much as Precious. Full of brazenly racist clichés . . . it is a sociological horror show.” CT Movies critic Brett McCracken took issue with a scene depicting Precious running down the street with a stolen bucket of fried chicken: “A film like this would be more effective, I think, without such an ungainly commitment to in-your-face shock value. It’s a shocking-enough subject matter without the scenes of fried chicken larceny."

All this may lead some Christians to decide against viewing Precious. I empathize with that decision, wholly affirming each believer’s freedom to abstain from media that offend their conscience or touch on particular sensitivities. All of us can probably think of times we watched a movie praised by critics and friends, only to resent doing so later because of how it affected us. For many believers, this will be such a movie.

Based on my own experience seeing Precious, though, I want to suggest at least one spiritual benefit of watching hard-to-watch films: They allow viewers to understand a bit of the characters’ traumas without having to live through the traumas. Without having to undergo the horror of sexual abuse, we see, for example, how a sex-abuse survivor like Precious might view herself and her future. Or, by watching Waltz with Bashir — another harrowing movie of the past year — we understand how some survivors of war are tortured by their own wartime actions decades after the fighting has stopped. In seeing the depths of human sinfulness and misery without having to suffer them directly, viewers who choose to see such films are given a bit of grace.

Of course, if we leave the theater without connecting the characters’ experience with those of flesh-and-blood people, we neglect a central benefit of hard-to-watch films. Several writers have noted how many Claireece Precious Joneses there are in the U.S., and how they so need support from ministries that reach out to teen mothers or sex-abuse survivors. One Christian ministry, Teen Mother Choices International, has responded to Precious by launching “the Plan” to reach the estimated 485,000 teen girls who become mothers in a year’s time. Likely Precious will serve to remind others why they do the work they do, offering a boost of inspiration when resources and hope are low.

Christians who forgo seeing Precious aren’t de facto callous for doing so. But for those who watch it carefully and prayerfully, the film will likely translate into reaching the precious among them with tangible acts of Christlikeness.

Dave Ramsey, Megan McArdle, and Jesus

In my most recent Her.meneutics post — on the biblical dimensions of frugal living — I took issue with Atlantic “econoblogger” Megan McArdle’s New York Times review of Lauren Weber’s In CHEAP We Trust: The Story of a Misunderstood American Virtue. I didn’t care for the fact that McArdle detached evangelical finance guru Dave Ramsey’s advice from its biblical source when advocating his frugal living principles over Weber’s more ascetic values. Now McArdle has written a profile of Ramsey in the December issue of The Atlantic. She once again makes it clear that she appreciates Ramsey’s principles, but not so much his Jesus.

Sarah Pulliam Bailey noted at GetReligion that McArdle oddly compares Ramsey with a televangelist. A more substantive problem is that Ramsey’s “give 10 percent, save 15, get out of debt” advice sounds like it was lifted from the late Larry Burkett, whose Crown Financial Ministries rates a passing mention.

For those of us who came of age on the late 20th-century evangelical block, Burkett was John the Baptist compared to McArdle’s televangelist. His now-classic Your Finances in Changing Times was first published in 1975. And who can forget his 1991 tour de force, The Coming Economic Earthquake — a book whose veracity was diminished, in my mind, by Burkett's Y2K hysteria. Of this misstep, World magazine editor Joel Belz wrote last year: “It is appropriate — and maybe even necessary — to acknowledge that a prophet may have missed a relatively minor point or two just to enhance the essential nature of that person's central message.”

In addition to Mennonite influences that I mentioned in my previous post, Burkett’s earlier work shaped my family’s budgetary habits. We are not alone. According to the ministry’s website, “Crown has taught or equipped more than 50 million people in over 80 nations with the life-transforming message of faithfully living by God’s financial principles in every area of their lives.”

McArdle wrote that she paid $220 to hear Ramsey dole out financial advice for five hours when she could have bought one of his or Burkett’s books for less than $20. I’d be hard-pressed to think of anyone I’d pay $220 to get their advice, unless that person was poring over my problems and providing individual counsel in his or her office.

Ramsey’s personal testimony of financial ruin and redemption took him 90 minutes to tell the day McArdle heard him. It’s a testimony of building and losing a multimillion-dollar real-estate empire, bankruptcy, and dramatic financial conversion after reading in Proverbs 22:7 that “the rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.”

He has apparently rebuilt both his wealth and his empire selling simple biblical principles to a new generation of debt-ridden consumers. Perhaps this is where the slick televangelist comparison comes in. It’s also what I resist about the Christian self-help industry in general: the funky mix of spiritualized edu-tainment and guru-making entrepreneurship. Just look at the product stores on both Ramsey’s and Crown’s websites, and ask yourself if there isn’t something immoral about marketing such a plethora of products to financially strapped consumers.

McArdle makes light of her televangelist’s gospel message, I think, because the context is all wrong. There may come a time, however, when her new-found, Ramsey-inspired frugality proves insufficient for the unforeseen downturns of life. Then she may find herself considering Ramsey’s Jesus. After all, it was he who famously turned the tables on the entrepreneurial gurus of his time.

Holiday Generosity: Now a Click Away

I have mixed feelings about wish lists. They rob Christmas of creativity, surprise, and personal contact, but they also make shopping much, much easier. And it's nice to know that if I pay attention to the lists, gift recipients won't roll their eyes and return the gifts before the tree is by the curb.

To cut down on my family's December stress, I make my own wish list each year, feeling vaguely guilty (do I need those pearl earrings?). "Get better gifts," orders Amazon.com's wishlistmeister. I don't like his tone.

This year, though, Amazon has vastly improved its wish list, and now I can ask for anything I want from any online supplier. It doesn't even have to be a merchant: it can be a food bank, a cultural or educational organization, a humane society, a church — any organization that has a website and accepts money. All I have to do is put an "Add to Wish List" button on my Favorites or Bookmarks toolbar.

And 2009 is a good year, I think, to bypass the pearl earrings and go straight for the better gifts: gifts that will help people whose income went down more than ours did, or who lost their jobs or their homes, or who have unmanageable medical expenses, or who aren't sure they will be able to afford Christmas dinner. According to a November 27 Associated Press story,

food banks across the country report about a 30 percent increase in demand on average, but some have seen as much as a 150 percent jump in demand from 2008 through the middle of this year. . . . The U.S. Department of Agriculture said earlier this month that 49 million people, or 14.6 percent of U.S. households, struggle to put food on the table, the most since the agency began tracking food security levels in 1995.

Contributions can't keep pace. David R. Francis writes in the November 30 Christian Science Monitor:

Donations to the nation’s largest nonprofits, including prominent universities, hospitals, and foundations, are expected to fall 9 percent this year, according to a survey by The Chronicle of Philanthropy last month. That’s the steepest drop the publication has reported in 17 years of surveying the 400 largest charities in the United States.

What to do?

1. Set up your Amazon wish list and add-to button.

2. Go to your favorite charity's website. If you don't have a favorite charity, or if you'd like to be sure that the charities you support are using your money wisely, go to Charity Navigator. There, you can sort charities by name, location, purpose, budget, and rating. You can look at Top Ten lists and articles on how to give wisely; you can read users' comments on various charities; and you can even learn how much each charity's CEO earns.

3. Navigate to the Web page that describes the program you want to support, or that tells how to donate.

4. Click on your "Add to Wish List" button, and follow the instructions.

Hey, the earrings are still on my wish list (I add them anew every year), along with the coffee grinder, the Harry Potter DVD, and the espresso cups. I'm not saying that Christmas should be turned into a social justice rally. I plan to add even more items to my list (rationale: a really long list allows friends and family to be creative, and even the recipient might be surprised at what she gets), and I'm already ordering wrappable gifts for the kids and grandkids.

I'm just saying that a little less for me and a little more for others, multiplied by however many people also put charities on their wish lists this year, could add up to a merrier Christmas for everyone.