Rebecca K. Reynolds

Honest Company for the Journey

Trouble Go Down: An Upcoming Record Release

A few years ago, I wrote a hymns record with Ron Block of Alison Krauss, Union Station and dear, gifted Jeff Taylor. They wrote the music, and I wrote the lyrics.

That record is called Trouble Go Down, and it will be released on September 30. A feature song from the album will be up on the Rabbit Room soon.

Everything Ron and Jeff created is breathtakingly beautiful, so I am excited for you to experience their gifts when the record comes out. However, I am a little nervous about my part in the release, for reasons I describe in the Rabbit Room post.

If you wouldn't mind praying for this record, that God might use it to encourage hurting and weary souls, I sure would appreciate it. Creating is easy, but sending what has been made into a world full of strangers is awfully hard.

Thank you,
Becca

"A Room With a View"

Like most book nerds, I used to daydream about teaching college literature. However, over the past five years, I've found something even better -- teaching high school juniors and seniors in a classical school.

The kids I get to teach are more prepared and responsible than most college freshmen, and since many of my students have grown up alongside my own children, they tend to feel kind of like family.

An added bonus is that teenagers are some of my favorite humans. I love the sorts of questions kids ask at this age, and I love being in their lives daily during that last stage of their launch into the adult world.

Even better, of all the teenagers on the planet, I somehow landed those with the biggest hearts and brightest minds. You need to keep an ear out for my students, see? These people are going to change the world.

For so many reasons, I love my job. I believe in what we do here big picture, I believe in our leaders, and I believe in where we are headed as we grow.

However, until this year, there was one barrier to my work that kept me from performing at the top of my game. For four years, I was a mobile teacher who had to cart books and supplies from floor to floor, rushing between classes so that I could give the next lecture at the next hour's bell.

If you have never been a teacher, you might not realize how difficult this sort of getup is, so let me fill you in on the details. There wasn't a quiet place I could work before school to get things ready for my classes, nor was there a place I could catch up after hours and prepare for the next day.  Collecting papers was always complicated. (Where do you organize the stacks of research papers and quizzes when you don't have a landing place?)  Distributing and collecting books was a challenge.

I also had to limit my lesson plans to what could be ported, set up, and unpacked in a matter of seconds. For some classes - maybe a class that centers around a single book - that sort of adaptability might be doable. Teaching the humanities, however,  involves many different books, movies, illustrations of all sorts.

Finding a computer that worked was also a regular chore. It wasn't uncommon for planning that had taken me 30 minutes or an hour of hard mental labor to just disappear. When the computer system would freeze, I would have to rush to rewrite the whole of what I had already created, and of course rushed work is full of errors and gaps.

Taking attendance in different rooms takes a chunk out of the few minutes you have to set up for your class. As I slid in the door after weeding through dozens of teenagers in the hallways, I would have to remember to log onto a computer, open a program with a password, and click through several screens before spreading out notes or any diagrams that I had created for the day.

Those things made teaching hard.

It's a testimony to how much I love this place that almost every single day I was here, I was happy. Yes, I was tired. Yes, I felt behind. Yes, I felt irresponsible when I didn't get all the boxes checked. But I kept thinking that most of what I couldn't finish was my own fault.

For four years, I beat myself up when I missed details, and by the end of each day, I was just so weary. Because I'd never had any other situation in which to teach, I assumed everybody felt this way.

Then, out of the blue, I got a room.

No. I didn't just get "a room," I got the perfect room... a room with a window that looks out onto a little pond and a cow pasture. I got this particular room because one of my beautiful coworkers sneaked off to administration without my knowledge and convinced them to give me HER room. She did this because she knows how much I love natural light, and she wanted me to be able to work in it. (Guys, teachers don't do this stuff for each other. That's the kind of school this is. I'm telling you, it's a special place.)

When I realized what she had done, I fought her on it, but she insisted -- and now I have been teaching in a perfect, perfect classroom for an entire week.

Suddenly I have a place for everything. I have a computer that works. I have a printer that works. I have the quiet I need to focus on the difficult subject matter I have been given. I have space to prepare space for my students. I have every single resource I could want to organize and to plan.

And let me tell you, teaching now is a whole different world. I suddenly feel like I'm in my groove, made to do exactly this right now with these students.

Teaching is still difficult, of course. I still don't sleep enough at night, and trying to write a book while maintaining a house and a full time job doesn't leave much time for extras.

Even inside this perfect classroom, there's no easy way to help eleventh graders plug through Aristotle. This is difficult reading, no matter what. It's hard to teach a kid how to improve an essay -- hard to to help a student who has never liked reading plug through Jane Austen.

However, the big difference now is that I can spend time and effort doing what should be challenging as a teacher.  I can focus on grading paragraphs with intentionality, preparing lectures, and making sure my lesson plans are in order. I suddenly realize how some of the teachers I work with were doing what they were doing all along.

But there's more. Now I want to tell you how this experience of abundance is changing the way I interpret some of my students.

I've always loved these kids, and I've always wanted to see them win in my class; however, it's sometimes difficult for me to see how their back stories impact their work. I don't know which students are managing a parent with depression, or who feels shaken because their home is driven by constant financial strain. I don't know who couldn't sleep last night because they found out a parent is having an affair.

I don't know which of my students have good lighting for doing their homework, or computers that work, or access to resources that they need. I don't know which students are working minimum wage from 3:30 - 11:30, then trying to finish complex assignments before grabbing three hours of sleep. I don't know which of the girls who try to wear too-short skirts have a family dynamic that would make attention seeking make sense if I could look through their eyes. When I stand in front of the class and collect papers, I can't tell that some of these students are having to labor twice as hard for half the results.

I can't see the values of their families. I can't tell which parents make a sit down dinner for a peaceful evening together, or who is warming up a pot pie in the microwave. I don't know which students have parents with degrees that allow them to help with Calculus, and which parents had to stop helping with homework in eighth grade. I don't know which of them are watching passive fathers disengage, or which have bitter mothers who poison the air of their homes. I don't know which kids are trying to complete difficult, thoughtful work in a crowded apartment with a television blaring 24/7.

There's so much talk these days about owning our own responsibilities, and there needs to be talk like that. It is not only deeply dangerous, but also insulting to insinuate that disadvantaged people cannot rise above their limitations.

Politicians with greedy motives tend to throw around dialogue about "advantage" for political ends, suggesting policies that will benefit nobody but themselves. In fact, some of those politicians tend to want to feed dependency and disadvantage so that they can continue to trade government candy for votes.

However, it's also important to realize that disadvantage is real. While it can be overcome, and while it should be overcome, people facing challenges should be encouraged instead of dismissed with disgust or blame. Walking uphill is hard.

I have known this for a long time, but I'm finally living it. I am finally realizing that if this one simple thing --  having an adequate work space -- can renovate my life so much, what about those thousands of people who don't have the basic essentials?

A good night's rest. Feeling safe enough to take a walk around the neighborhood. Having enough money to buy healthy food. A reliable car.

Parents who don't hit you. A healthy brain. Rest without fear. There are at least some people around me don't have those things.

Secondly, this shift in my workspace has also helped me look back at my own past a little differently, particularly those years when I was a young mother, sleep deprived. Particularly those years when I was trying to homeschool. Particularly those years when I was trying to be a pastor's wife, and when I tried to do impossible things and failed in a thousand ways, because there simply wasn't enough of something I needed to succeed.

For years as a Christian, I've been kind of haunted by the "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" verse, as if every failure of performance were also some sort of failure of faith. However, in doing this, I have blurred some lines between holiness and humanness.

Yes, Jesus said that with faith the disciples could tell a mountain to move. But just a few verses later, he also tells them that the Son of Man would be delivered into the hands of men and be killed. Success in God's eyes doesn't always look like hitting a home run.

In fact, that promise for provision falls into the context of ministry advice. The main point of this passage isn't that the disciples would be perfect or even fabulous, but that efforts to do the work of God without dependence upon God was futile.

And if you know the rest of the story, you know how these disciples would learn their limitations, too. They didn't pop around the holy land zapping out miracles like Hogwarts wizards; they would be hungry, and abused, and discouraged, and they would make terrible mistakes.

In their own ways, they would find the end of their own abilities. They would learn what they couldn't do as well as what they could -- and they would find that grace was sufficient. In fact, in Paul's case, his limitations were used to teach him that very lesson.

Maybe a new classroom is a strange way for me to learn this lesson, but I can't help but think about this stuff as I move through my day. In my season abundance, I am looking back into my many seasons of lack, and I am starting to interpret my life a little differently. A little less condemnation for myself. A little more tenderness. Permission to reboot some conclusions I'd drawn about and start to find new names to exchange for the old ones.

More importantly, this realization is forcing me to apply some of that same tenderness to others in the world who might not have resources they need this year to thrive.

image.jpg

Reading Eugene Peterson's The Message

Yesterday I received a gift copy of Eugene Peterson’s paraphrase of the Bible, The Message. I cracked it open to the book of Micah last night, then I read back through that section this morning. It was good medicine for my heart during these crazy times.

 

As I was reading, I realized that I wanted to write a post explaining how I use this variation of God’s Word. While growing up inside conservative Christianity, I heard some pretty strong, negative opinions about The Message. Teachers told me that this was the version "serious Biblical scholars didn't use," and it was often regarded with either suspicion or outright disdain.

But in retrospect, those opinions weren't limited to Peterson’s work. During my lifetime, in my particular circles of evangelicalism, the debate about “which Bible to use” has spanned translations ranging from the NIV through the HCSV. Every few years while I was growing up, it seemed like an expert came along to scold us for reading whatever we were reading, and then tell us which translation of the Bible to use instead.

So I'd like to take a few minutes to explain why Biblical translation is even an issue, first. Then, I'd like to get into why I love The Message, and how I tend to use it in my walk with Jesus.

As I understand it, the primary translation dilemma (for all versions) tends to boil down to a choice between a word-for-word translation or a thought-for-thought translation. For example, let's imagine translating an English idiom into another language. If I told you that my neighbor, Bob, had a “chip on his shoulder,” you would understand that I meant he was resentful and looking for ways to be offended. But how would I translate that idea so that someone from another country understood it? Would I choose a word-for-word replacement? Would I say, “My neighbor, Bob, has a massive piece of flesh missing from his right shoulder”? Or would I take that same idea and find words or phrases to help someone who doesn’t know English idioms understand what I actually meant?

In my decades of conservative Bible study, I often heard people arguing that one translation or another was "closer to the text." However, I rarely heard people explain the technical difficulty of decisions translators had to face. Some of these choices aren't easy.

During my Precept Study Bible years, I used the NASB because it was supposed to be a solid attempt at literality while helping students with phrases that didn’t translate well into modern English. Also, notes provided literal translations for tricky passages, so that I could see what interpretative decisions had been made.

After the NASB, a lot of my crowd switched to the ESV.  This is still the version I use, for the most part. It was first revised in 2007 and then again in 2011, mostly with attempts to replace archaic language with more modern phrasing. I’m not a huge fan of the revisions, but I don’t think they took any serious meaning away. In fact, here’s a link, if you want to check some of those changes out. ( http://static.esv.org/misc/esv_2011_changes.html ) My guess is that you will take a look and say, "What's the big deal?" Because really, the shifts are minimal. Word nerds like me would rather use “teem” than “increase greatly,” so my disappointment here is more aesthetic than theological.

Bible readers who embrace Dr. Mark Strauss’s frustrations with the ESV’s handling of various idioms and interpretational “errors” (http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf ) now seem to be smitten with the Holman Christian Standard Version.  I like what I’ve read of the HCSV, but I still use the ESV for the bulk of my serious study. Why? Because I own ESV Bibles that I've already marked up, Bibles I'm familiar with that I like. When the time comes to buy a new study Bible, I'll do some research about which version to purchase. For now, I'm pretty happy with what I have.

I will say that I'm glad that (for the most part) the ESV doesn't seem to be quite as drunk as the (new) NIV on attempts at gender-neutrality. Yeah, there are a few places in the ESV where “brothers” and “men” are replaced with “people,” but God is still “He,” and for the most part, the original gender language is left in tact.

(BTW, can I just offer up a random opinion from a fierce, independent female? I don’t like it when Biblical translators or hymn revisionists assume that I’m not bright or strong enough to understand that I’m included in masculine pronouns or nouns. Gender words are not confusing cultural idioms, and I’m quite capable of navigating the Biblical gender waters without needing blow-up arm floaties. Likewise, changing God to a “she,” is ridiculous. God took care to include feminine references to himself in the Bible, too. We just need to let Him do what He intended to do in every description of Himself and stop messing with His art.)

Dedicating this picture of the botched up repair work of Martinez's 19th century fresco in Santuario de Misericordia to all those people who keep messing with Biblical gender language. Stop it, please. Thanks.

Dedicating this picture of the botched up repair work of Martinez's 19th century fresco in Santuario de Misericordia to all those people who keep messing with Biblical gender language. Stop it, please. Thanks.

Students of literature tend to love the KJV for its Shakespearean language, despite a few technical issues here and there with translation. Whereas a good chunk of baby boomers (particularly the electric guitars and smoke machines contingency) poo-poo 16th-17th century diction, many young readers tend to revel in the reverence and balance of this old masterpiece. Our world has lost some of the majesty and reverence connoted in the King James Bible, so we delight to find it still exists somewhere. Artistically speaking, I imagine that this version will always be my favorite.

As much as I love the Bible, my biggest beef with modern access to God's Word is actually not found in the nuances of translation, but in the fact that the largest publisher of Bibles is owned by one of the most prolific pornographers in America. It disgusts me that Rupert Murdoch is making major money off God’s Word. The Bible is the best-selling book of all time. What in the heck are we doing pouring money into such channels?

This business union is a definite moral crisis in American Christianity, and I think believers need to find some way to stand up and remedy this problem. (FYI, my strong stance on this automatically limits my professional career as a published Christian writer. However, if it comes down to it, I would rather never publish books and face Jesus someday knowing that I worked to divorce His church from a connection to gross corruption. God's Word should not be yoked to supporting pornography in any shape, form, or fashion.)

But back to The Message...

If anyone other than Eugene Peterson had attempted The Message, I might feel differently about it, but Peterson is special. I love his writing, and I love his heart. I trust him deeply.

And when I read The Message, I’m not looking for a literal translation of the Bible.  In fact, in my opinion, The Message is not a translation at all. That doesn't lessen it in my book. In fact, it increases its value to me. 

To me, The Message is a paraphrase written by a dear, wise pastor. It is like a sermon delivered after years and years of study, one man’s understanding of a holy text, offered to his parishioners. This is how I use The Message. I don’t bring the same expectations to it that I bring to the ESV, NIV, KJV, or HCSV. I receive it as a homily from the mouth of a local chaplain, processing what I read as if I were sitting in a pew, listening to a human teacher talking about his week of study.

And just like I do when listening to an oral sermon, when I use  The Message, I keep another translation open for reference. I do this because I want to look at a more literal rendition of Scripture while also listening to what Peterson gleaned from the text. Many times while doing this, I have seen a new angle on familiar parts of the Bible.

Good teaching pastors help a congregation catch the heart of a passage, and often The Message has done this for me. Sure, sometimes I find sections of The Message that I would have written differently, just like I often hear teaching pastors say things in a way that I wouldn't have said them. But because I am not expecting divine revelation here - because I let the tool be what it is (no more, no less) - I often come away from my time of engagement with The Message stronger in my faith.

I've talked with quite a few older believers who have hit a low point in faith at some point. (C.S. Lewis refers to these times as "troughs." Read about this here, if you are familiar with how The Screwtape Letters work. (The Screwtape Letters are letters from a fictional demon to his protege.)

Troughs are are seasons when the Bible grows familiar and faith feels heavy and dull, and I think The Message can be particularly helpful for this stage of life. While I might not recommend Peterson's paraphrase to every single non-Christian or new believer who is just beginning to learn essential Biblical truth (though I might recommend it to the more artistic searching sort) , I think The Message can be medicinal for weary, disillusioned Christians walking through a dark night of the soul.

I love Eugene Peterson, and I'm deeply grateful for his pastoral work with the Bible. Sometimes it's just helpful to have an older believer take your hand and walk you through the valley. We tend to get tired on this long walk, and Peterson feels like a dad to me, getting down on my level and helping explain his way of looking at truth. I'm so grateful for him and his efforts.

This morning I held my beautiful new copy of The Message and hugged it to my chest. It felt so good to have a friend for the journey. I needed that this week.

Anyway, as I was rereading Micah in Peterson’s language, I caught some nuances of the minor prophet that I had never understood before. I wish I had room left to unpack those here. Maybe tomorrow. For now, this post is too long already.

Ugly for Jesus : Thoughts on Evangelicalism and Beauty Bias

A couple of years ago, a funny YouTube video made the social media rounds, addressing a condition known as B.R.F. It's an acronym that I probably shouldn't unpack in this blog, but it basically means that some of us have faces that look angry when we are happily resting.

   

 

 

 

That video hit at just the right time for me, because I'm 44 this year, and getting older is doing something funky to my expressions. So many times I look in the mirror lately and think, “Wow. I don’t feel like that face looks.”

So I stand there staring at my reflection, trying to figure out what muscles I used to use to just look normal. I know that's a goofy thing to do, but I also know how people treat faces in this ol' world. Christians will tell you all day long that appearance doesn't matter, and that might be true at the heart level. But in terms of what actually moves human beings -- beauty is a mighty force.

I've been in and around Christian ministry for over 20 years now. When I first noticed evangelical leaders making choices for leadership and influence based on physical attractiveness, I was shocked.

No, "shocked" is too light of a word. I was horrified.

I will never forget some of those first conversations about spiritual multiplication in which leaders of leaders were coached to consider appearance while choosing who should be "up front."

The first summer I attended a beach mission project and was encouraged to stop wearing a big t-shirt over my bathing suit (so that I wouldn't look so conservative and stuffy),  I wanted to cry. "It's bad enough that all of you are wearing one-piece bathing suits," one of my leaders said. "You guys need to at least try to look relevant."

As time has passed, I have watched Christian industries of all sorts chase down men and women who possess some sort of beauty gimmick. Former pageant queens. Former athletes with gorgeous bodies. Publishers and record labels snag those folks like prizes, giddy that someone who loves Jesus is also physically attractive.

I used to think that Christian industry was trying to help pagans find the gospel -- wrapping Jesus in a thick layer of sexy to help the medicine go down. Lately, I'm more inclined to think that it's not really about pagans in the end. I'm starting to think it's more about selling stuff to existing believers who like to have superstars make them feel less nerdy about faith.

I don't know.

But heck, Amish Christian romance covers. Can we talk about those? Who are these women? And why do they have Kim Kardashian lips? I can't deal.

But before I really get into how beauty is handled in the Christian community, I want to take a look at what we are told by the world. 

While researching this topic, I read through several scientific studies on beauty bias, but I’ve decided not to include any of those findings here. I just don't need formal studies to convince you of my point. You already see beauty bias happening every day of your life, which makes my work as a writer easy.

What I want to do instead is reference some non-scientific mush sites that demonstrate how our culture tends to connect face shapes and personality types. Then I'll get deeper into Jesus world.

WHAT THE WORLD SAYS #1:

“The Seven Soul Types: What Do They Look Like?”

Okay, first I'm including a link to an outright claim that your personality type is determined by your face shape.

(Hurry! Hurry! Check it out and see if you are living out your face-destiny! (Sarcasm font.))

SOURCE:
 


It looks so official, doesn't it? I'm the artisan. Somebody give me some canvas and leather, and I'll make you some shoes or something.

Or let's look at the one in the middle row on the right. The "Server." Supposedly, the Server is supposed to work like this: 

“Servers are gentle, genial souls. Facially, they often characterised by a rounded head, sometimes potato-shaped, with soft, sagging features and smallish, tired-looking eyes. Rounded shoulders are also typical.
The Server’s baseline expression varies between one of sorrowful pity (when they focus on the common woes of life, like Mother Teresa) and sweet, innocent cheerfulness (when they focus on serving the common good, like the Dalai Lama). But either way, there is a basic vibe of harmlessness.
Typical traits: accommodating, caring, modest, dedicated, unassuming, homely, downtrodden, melancholic.”

 

Now we get two examples. Queen Elizabeth and Desmond Tutu.

 

I'm sorry to break this discovery to all you Desmond Tutu fans out there, but the guy had no choice. He was born with SERVER FACE?

Uhhh... anyway... moving right along...
 

WHAT THE WORLD SAYS #2:

Thoughts from a face shape EXPERT. (Do not doubt the expert of the face, guys. And stop snickering.)

"'Your face is saying something,' expert Jean Haner, author of The Wisdom Of Your Face, told Cosmopolitan. 'You're born with with features you have for a reason. The face is a map of your personality as well as your whole life.'" SOURCE:

The article continues:

“London-born TV personality Kelly Osbourne, 30, has a triangle-shaped face. This means the face is narrower at the forehead but wide at the jawline. 

Men and women with these faces tend to be artistic, creative and sensitive but also fiery.  

'This shape means you usually want to be in charge,' said Ms Haner told Cosmopolitan. 'And the more narrow your forehead is at toward the top of the person's head, the more they have to be in control.'

She said people with triangle face shapes are usually 'very successful'.”
 

There it is. Kelly Osbourne. She's going to be a life coach soon, mentoring the triangle faces of humanity in global domination. (I really hate to discourage all of you with oval and square faces, but there it is. Documented. Might as well give up. Hahah.)


WHAT THE WORLD SAYS #3:

Disney


Don't get all huffy. I'm not going to beat up Mickey Mouse. I like a lot of what Disney does, but I hate this one part of their work.

For YEARS Disney has been programming kids to expect goodness to look one way and evil to look another. Take a minute to compare the basic face shapes between heroines and villains here:

In the past few years, some of this has changed a little bit here and there with Disney. But for the most part, these are still the norms. Villains are still ugly. Heroines are still gorgeous.

WHAT THE WORLD SAYS #4.

Snidely Whiplash.

Confession. I might just be including this picture because it cracks me up. But still. Snidely Whiplash! Evil blue face. Dudley Do-Right, hyperbolic righteous Canadian manliness.

I better stop writing about this. I'm going to start making jokes I'll feel bad about later tonight. If you know me personally, message me, and we can get all into this one.

 

WHAT THE WORLD SAYS #5 :

SHREK

I’m addressing Shrek specifically because it was such an important movie-- an honest-to-goodness example of a deconstructed fairy tale.

Deconstructionism is a literary school (though deconstructionists would deny that it’s a formal school because they are stubborn like that) that rips apart societal conventions with glee.

If you’ve seen Shrek, you know how the princess turns uglier for love instead of prettier, and then everybody in the audience is all “Whoa!” because that never happens in movies. Then we feel all insightful, and enlightened, and compassionate, because we realize we like ugly better when it's good instead of evil.

Just know that the only reason this movie works is because it's pointing out the stereotype before breaking it.
 

WHAT THE WORLD SAYS #6:

Phrenology


Y’all, phrenology cracks me up. It’s a Victorian way of making assumptions about a person's character and intellect based on skull shape. Folks were all about it in the 1800’s, but now we consider it quack science...  weeeeellllll, except for the fact that a lot of us have retained some of the underlying principles of phrenology subconsciously.

Get a load of these whack diagrams:
 

Hahahahha. Ladies on Christian Mingle. Do NOT DATE THE DANGER MAN!

(Christian Mingle Conversation:)

DangerMan7564: "Hey baby, want to talk about Two Corinthians?"

InnocentMaidenWonkaWonka: "Oh my! I just Googled you and saw the back side of your head! You're Danger Man! I can't talk to you!" (Block Profile! Block Profile!)

WHAT THE WORLD SAYS #7:

Jungian Archetypes


Carl Jung was a disciple of Sigmund Freud (yeah, the perv Freud.) I like Jung loads better than Freud, though both were a little weird, in my book.

One of the helpful things Jung created was a list of archetypes that appear and reappear in literature (and life). And because Jung had a huge impact on the work of Joseph Campbell who developed a story cycle that has influenced just about every movie you've ever seen, and a ton of books you've read (including Star Wars), the average American has been influenced to believe that people fall into some basic categories.
 


Because most of us watch this assumption play out in movies, facial stereotypes come with the territory. And thanks to the millennia-long influence of Greek thought organizers (like Aristotle), you and I are automatically comfortable putting people in categories.

These charts (below) aren’t pure Jung, but they will still give you a loose feeling for what I’m talking. about. Especially look through the second chart here and see what visual similarities appear. Could you cast the maidens as sages? Why or why not?
 

https://brandmanagerguide.com/2014/10/02/archetypes-in-branding/
 

http://www.chartgeek.com/jungian-archetypes-2/
 

So <she says, dusting off her hands> that's a smattering of what the secular world gives us -- but what about Christianity? What does faith provide instead?

In terms of content, Christians are repeatedly told stuff like this:

You are worthy just like you are.
You are beautiful just like you are.

God sees you, even though you aren’t conventional.
You are the beloved.

Great message, right? Warm fuzzies, all?

Yet does this language actually line up with how the industry of faith works?

Does it line up with the women we see "solid male believers" deciding to date?

Does it line up with the women we see promoted at faith conferences?

Does it line up with the women that big music labels choose for their videos?

And men, too? What about guys? Square jaws? Height? Broad shoulders?

Confession #2. This one is embarrassing. My WORST Seinfeld crush (by far) was George Costanza. Be that what it may, I seriously doubt I'm going to see a "George" leading a manly Jesus rally in a football stadium any time soon.

For the most part, the promoted Christian women are young, sexy, and beautiful. And though beauty bias might be a little easier on guys, for the most part, Christianity wants its main men to look like superheroes.

Let's get specific. Ready to go there?

Below is a list of top Twitter followers for evangelical females. (It's from a few years back.)

Okay, ignore Joyce Meyer. She’s popular because she promises a bunch of cray-cray stuff that naive people absorb without cross-checking Scripture. If you follow her, STOP DOING THAT. SERIOUSLY, STOP. STOP. STOP. <Can you feel me smacking your hand off the computer mouse with a plastic fly swatter?> HER THEOLOGY IS BAD AND DANGEROUS. Leave it alone.

But skipping Meyer, look at this list of some top influential Christian women on Twitter:

(Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2013/02/top-20-influential-christian-women-on-twitter/)

Now look at pictures of some of these women. What do you see?


Beautiful, right? Every single one of them.

And now look at the top-ranking female CCM singers for 2015. What do you notice? (A lot of guys were in the top 15, so the numbers should really run 1, 2, 3 if we are counting only women. I didn't skip any girls.)

#4 Lauren Daigle

#6 Francesca Battistelli

#16 Kari Jobe
 

http://www.billboard.com/charts/year-end/2015/top-christian-artists

Woah, right?

Now hear me. I don’t mind that these women are talented AND beautiful. Lauren Daigle is one of my favorite singers ever, for example. As far as I can tell, she's as sincere as they get.

But while we allow these beautiful women to be gifted and sincere, are we also allowing others to be only gifted and sincere? Do you see what’s missing in the lineup? What is it that we almost never see promoted in modern Christian industry?


Remember that moment? The world was stunned by Susan Boyle, because her beauty was unconventional, and yet we were forced to see that she was glorious. (And P.S., I think Boyle is as cute as can be, but I'm talking about society's standards here. The magazine cover standard. The centerfold. The Victoria's Secret model. And while you and I might have the ability to see beauty in all faces, most of the world - sadly - does not.)

Why is this, church? Why did the realization that the Susan Boyles of the world ARE beautiful have to come from a secular show? Why weren't the sons and daughters of God already saying this more clearly than anyone?

And for goodness sakes, why are we jumping up and down when a former Miss Hotness U.S.A. signs a new book contract or record label for Jesus while most of us running around are just regular people with regular faces? What are we really saying if that is a big deal to us?

This post is already too long (sorry! sorry!), but I want to close with two quick things. First, I want to give you a quote from a writer friend of mine. She has been a part of evangelical Christianity for a long time, and when she found out I was writing this article, here's what she said:

“I was in the audience for a Bible study series being filmed by Lifeway. The Bible teacher was a celebrity of sorts in the genre of Christian speakers. After we were seated, everyone who had white hair, was dressed shabbily, or who was fat or had an unflattering camera presence was asked to sit toward the back for most of the taping. I guess an audience of beautiful people sells more product.”
 

How sad! How sad that we tell people that their external attributes don’t define them while organizing the Christian industry around the values of our world.

And nearly every female I know feels this reality intensely.

As a female Christian writer, I struggle with pressure to conform to the world's standards, and I'm not just imagining it. Last year an influential figure in the Christian recording industry told a male friend of his, "The only reason people read Rebecca is because she's hot."

When I heard about this, I wanted to puke. First off, the comment was untrue... I'm 100% not hot in real life... he had just seen flattering, carefully-chosen pictures of me online. (Practicing my not-B.R.F.) So, my first emotion upon hearing this was to feel ashamed and deceptive, and I immediately took all my profile pictures down on Facebook.

Then I wanted to puke because I realized that when a man talks to another man... two male members of the successful Christian industry machine... in the privacy of that dialogue, I'm either hot or I'm not hot. They will discuss it.

Some part of my value in Christian industry comes down to that. Especially now, in a world where Christian speakers build "brands" that have to be marketed, my allure is (at least to some people) just as important as anything else I have to contribute.

Women get so much flack about dressing provocatively, but this is why we struggle with all that, guys. It's not just because the world "out there" values our sexuality. It's because the evangelical machine also tends to cater to it. In Christian communities, in Christian industry, in Christian dating relationships, in Christian everything... we are still assessed by our appearance. 

We've seen Christian leaders defer to gorgeous women so long, we now expect it. We used to believe all that stuff about burying our hearts so deeply in Jesus a man of God would find us there, but for the most part, it seems like the men of God are too busy making out in their apartments over the weekend with twenty-something 9's and 10's who post gym butt-pics on Instagram. We've been to the conferences and noticed that Every. Single. Woman. Speaking. looks like a Barbie.

It often feels like there's no safe place for us to live out of our true value... at least not in terms of human safety. And even when the bias is subtle, it is still powerful.

As much as I want beauty not to matter for me and for every other woman contributing to evangelicalism, at present, it does impact how we are received. It impacts the mechanics of the business side of Christianity. It affects which women are called back for the interview. It affects who gets the book deal and who gets invited to speak.

And all of this impacts the greater message Christians in America are hearing -- which is a greater communal tragedy than any sort of disparity that any individual believer faces.

So I want to challenge us all, then, to do the following.

1. Realize that beauty bias exists in evangelicalism. Talk with people on your church staff teams or in your particular industry (music, publishing, evangelistic planning, conference planning) about it. Put the facts on the table and decide whether what you are telling people aligns with what you are showing them. If there’s a disparity, fix it.

2. In the quiet of your own heart, take time to realize that you have been programmed all your life to make immediate judgments based on how someone’s face looks. Let this recognition urge you to lean the opposite way. Take extra time to look behind your first impression. Really listen.

And bonus: if you are a dude, stop dating based primarily on this. Seriously. Grow up. I am so tired of seeingamazing single Christian women waiting for men who will never chase them, because those men are too busy chasing their high school fantasies. Gross.

3. Recognize that everyone you interact with has been living in a world with these biases. The people you meet have been conditioned to believe things about themselves, based on their faces, for decades.  What impact might being told, “You are so sweet,” have on a woman over twenty years? What might being overlooked because your face is fat, or your nose is hooked, or because your eyes are buggy have after a lifetime?

So even when personality and face shape stereotypes do seem to line up, think about why. And give people a chance to emerge that they might not even realize they need.

4. If you are strongly drawn to beauty, intentionally make a few choices about who you read, listen to, study based on content instead of appearance. Not everyone who is Western-beautiful is a bad thinker or teacher, of course. I love a lot of performers and writers who are technically gorgeous. But let’s spend time intentionally seeking out some people who don’t meet modern consumer beauty standards to find out what they have to say.  Imagine the wisdom of having to work all your life against beauty bias. What depth might come out of a life lived like that? What are you missing?

5. Think about how you’ve thought about yourself in light of all this. What have you assumed you were worth? What have you assumed you could or could not do? What advantages do you need to stop depending on? What limitations do you need to resist?

So what if you're ugly for Jesus? So what if I am? I say, that's beautiful, too. I say let's learn to see better, and learn to listen better, and learn to revere the image of God in all seven billion ways it shows up on planet Earth.

Finally, I’m going to close with some pictures of my beautiful friends. When I told them I was writing this piece, they volunteered to help me out with some selfies.

I have the best friends in the world, you know. They have made me the writer I am, and they continue to do that. And so here they are, not behind the scenes this time.

They wanted to show you the faces of strangers, so that you could practice your seeing. When you look at each of these people, what do you assume? Who would you trust? Who wouldn’t you want to speak with at a party? Why?

If there are any you'd overlook, you'd be missing out.






 

The Nineveh Liturgies - Day 2 (On Truth)

DAY 2 - The Nineveh Liturgies (On Truth)

Photo Credit: http://morguefile.com/search/morguefile/3/storm/pop

Photo Credit: http://morguefile.com/search/morguefile/3/storm/pop

Holy Lord,

We have refused to accept truths that we don’t like, and we have attempted to create our own reality instead.

When we have run into commands of Yours that are difficult or uncomfortable for us, we have turned away from them.

We have relied upon our own sensitivity and our own judgment above all other standards.

We have chosen our own ideas of “right” and “wrong” without even asking You if You agree.

When Your opinion has differed from ours, we have decided to reinterpret You, creating a new god that is really just a golden idol hammered from the values of our culture.

We have made excuses for our failures, our temptations, and our bad choices until we can barely feel conviction. In fact, we have even tried to put the language of holiness and compassion on evil things.

As we have spent time with smart, funny, and powerful people, we have grown enchanted with their explanations for humanity and for the universe. We have let ourselves be intimidated first, then persuaded a little at a time that obedience to You is superstitious.

We have only kept the easy, comfortable parts of your gospel.

We haven't allowed You to direct us to do anything that would cost us everything.

In doing this, we have slowly hardened our hearts until we can barely feel our conscience. Right feels wrong to us now. Wrong feels right.

You say that Your sheep will recognize Your voice, but for so long we have replaced Your voice with ours, that Your voice feels foreign and threatening to us.

America has come now to the point where we cannot discern light from dark. The eyes of our souls cannot understand.

Many of those who claim to know You don’t understand Your ways. They are false teachers, saying things that feel good to us. They are persuasive and winsome, and we drink them down until we are drunk on fury, resentment, and self-reliance.

Lord, we ask You to remove the spirit of blindness from our land. No matter what it takes, no matter how painful it is, strip away the skins of the dragon we have grown around us.

We cannot see clearly without You. 

We are not wise enough or strong enough to do this without You. We need Your rescue.

Please flood America with Your Spirit. Make us discerning and sensitive.

When You expose our lies, give us courage to confess and repent. 

Teach us the joy of submission.

Ravish our hearts with whatever Your truth may be, and help us to dash our idols on the rocks.