Bittersweet Beauty

I don't regret my decision to break-up with my fiance. For where we were at and what was going on in our lives, it was the right thing to do. I know that now...but it's still hard and, in spite of everything, I still miss him. So much.

I wish I could hate him, that I could rant, rave, and curse him from here to Timbucktu.
All I can manage is a bitter, nostalgic sigh.

He's changing...for the better...and I am instensely jealous and heartbroken by it, as petty as that sounds.

He's found a church and finally started attending on a regular basis - all on his own.
He's involved with the music ministry at his church.
He's eating healthy, working out, and trying to take care of himself.
He's learning how to manage his money.
He's got a chance to - if it pans out - get out of the dead end job he's been stuck in and pursue something that makes him happy.

....all of which I begged him to do when we were still together. For months, I begged. Months. Now, when it's too late, he finally acts on these things.

I am happy for him. I truly am. It brings me great joy to know that something good has come out of this, that - despite all the heartache - his life is changing for the better, that he is finally becoming the person that God meant for him to be.

It just breaks my heart that it's all happening now that I'm gone.

Why? Why couldn't it have happened when we were together? Why couldn't he realize the things his realizing now when I begged him to? Why does he get to be a good person now that he's away from me?

At the risk of sounding like a petulent two-year old, it's not fair.
It's good, I'm happy for him, but it simply isn't fair.

And it hurts.

Ethical dilemmas

Former boy is sick...going into the hospital for a procedure.

He wants to see my puppy for a couple of days before he goes.

Mentally, I'm thinking "Well, the guy's about to go through a lot...you should probably "woman-up" and be kind - even if it's hugely uncomfortable. He doesn't really have anybody and this could be a good thing to do." Which, of course, my parents are gunning for.

The more emotional part of me is saying "I don't want to be anywhere near this man. The thought of it alone makes me hurt. It's my dog; he doesn't have a right to insert himself into my life anymore."

I feel like my personal boundaries are being violated...like I'm being forced into continued contact with a man I want nothing to do with. I just want to be left ALONE. So much of my life for the past year and a half was wrapped up in doing what he wanted me to do. Consequently, my instinctive reaction is to say "NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! This is my life now. You can't have it back; you can't be a part of it."

My inner two year old is screaming "THIS IS NOT FAIR" but part of me grudgingly worries I'm being petty...

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

God knows I'm out of them.

I feel like my entire life is hanging by some sort of invisible, unbalanced, thread. I can't see which way I'm supposed to turn on the highwire. Will I have a job two weeks from now when the county-wide lay-offs are announced - which will mean frantically searching for a new apartments and/or new roomates. Or will I be forced to trek it back to Orlando and search for a job there, living with my parents - kowtowing to their views, rules, and procedures - as though I were some sort of invalid instead of a fully fuctinioning adult? I just don't know...

And the worst part is, I'm not even sure which one I want anymore.

I am going to feel like an utter failure if I stay with my parents for more than the summer. If I'm truly an "adult" then I should be doing the adult thing and be trying to make my own life. But God, it is lonely in an apartment by yourself with no one but your dog for company; and at least I'd be as far away from the former-fiance as possible...less potential for heartahce that way. Not to mention, the security of a familiar place is extremely comforting in its own way....

I guess I'm just looking for direction. I will try to cope with whichever scenario I end up following: I just want to know that I'm doing the right thing - following the course of action that will actually get me somewhere and help me DO something with my life.

Guess I'm just waiting for the right window....

La vie poem!

Great news:

Three of my students went to a poetry slam...we practiced...they competed...and two of them took 1st and 2nd place - beating out all the other kids from all the other high schools!!!

I am so proud!! :D

...

The ex is still calling. STILL.

Just when I start to feel like I can function: another message lies waiting on the machine.

How am I supposed to get better if it doesn't ever stop? How am I supposed to heal?

And why do I feel guilty and like a bad person for needing space?


And why do I want to cry when I get email messages like this - even though I know it's "for the best":

"you know what, i get it-im through with this."

through with me, he means...like I'm not worth the breath it takes to write the email....

And why do I even care? STILL? When I'm the one who initiated it?

I should be rejoicing, right?....then why does my heart hurt? Why does it still matter?

And as I care, why do I still feel afraid?


...and why am I writing about it here?

All things new

Things have been pretty rough, lately. There have been some complicaitons with the ex: comlications that have made it rather difficult for me to dis-entangle myself. I am trying with a desperate fervancy to maintain my sense of separation. I need time and space to heal from all of this: a need that is hard to meet when the cause of that need persists in trying to contact me and reconnect. I worry for him; I pray for him; I wish I could mend the pain and frustration he's going through - but I can't. I'm not a savior: for myself or anyone else. God is the only one who can bring me any healing in this mess: I'm praying that God will be able to do the same for all other parties involved.

I spent Easter Sunday at Northland listening to Pastor Joel Hunter preach. Fantastic sermon. In the wake of everything that's happened, things have been rather hard lately. I am still reeling from the death of a dream; I am heartbroken because I know my former fiance is hurting - as am I. I have found myself struggling to hang on to the truth, to that oh-so-often quoted passage from Jeremiah: "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord. In the face of all I've lost - the love, the dreams, the self-esteem - it has been easy for me to get lost in the mourning.

Pastor Joel's Easter sermon, though, reminded me of a truth I had long forgotten about: after death, ressurection will come. His reminder to the congregation that "we can't get so caught up in what we've lost that we don't see what's right in front of us" was an apt one - one that speaks directly to where I'm at right now. He referenced Mary at the tomb and her inability to recognize Jesus when he spoke to her: she was so busy being distruaght that the failed to see that Jesus - the one she was longing for - was standing right in front of her.

When Pastor Joel talked about how Jesus spoke to Mary at the tomb, I could mentally see God asking me the same question: "Megan, why are you weeping?" God - my hope, my life, my validation, my love - was there the whole time: I was just so busy grieving that I missed him. He's been right here with me - all I had to do was be willing to actually look for him instead of drowning him out and looking away.

Especially in light of my recent grad school failure, I have been trying to re-evaluate where I am headed. I tried to plan out my life my way: everything fell apart. I am now trying to find the courage to surrender to whatever it is God might have in store for me. Luckily, part of me is irrepressibly excited about the future: new options, new choices, an endless parade of possibilities stretched out before me that I never had before (or, rather, never opened myself up to before). The endless sense of entrapment I've been buried under for the past several months is giving way to a delicious feeling of freedom.

Though it hurts my pride and my heart, maybe there is a reason I didn't get into grad school for Creative Writing. Maybe it was the wrong season or the wrong place. Maybe I was meant to do something else entirely - and my writing was meant to merely be a side enjoyment of mine. I am sincerely trying to allow my old tendencies - the fear of failure, the need to "prove" myself in the "real" world, etc - to stay nailed to the cross. Amibition and desire aren't bad: but chasing them at the exclusion of everything else most certainly falls into that category. It was my fear of letting go of my dreams, my desires, my wants, that allowed me to end up so heartbroken and far from both God and hope in the first place. I've tried it my way and experienced the pain that brings.

My gut-feeling is that - since there's nothing left to lose, no other dream to shatter, no other plan to fall apart -now is the time for me to let go of my fears and my pride and do things God's way. There is no better time for me to fully commit, to fully let God have control of my life. I need to let go of the false fear that somehow, by letting God lead, I will end up miserable, unfulfilled, and unhappy: that's what happened when I was in control. The worst I could imagine is what occurred when God was out of my life: not in it. I only pray I can be granted the strength to stand in the truth and recognize that. This particular issue is one that, as far as my life is concerned, doesn't like to stay dead; instead of being nailed down, it likes to ressurect itself like a ravenous zombie and, a la Resident Evil, tries to eat me whole.

I have no interest in being zombie food.

I am still hurting; I am still working through my sorrow. Some of the anger and heartache I've been harboring run deep, and I am struggling to give them over to God. Though it was not easy to hear, Pastor Joel's sermon provided me with a window of hope that I haven't dared to look out of in a long time. I'm so grateful for the reminder that, though I may be reeling from the death of my dreams right now, a ressurection will come. It may not be the way I expected it; it might not be exactly what I planned, but I am trusting that it will be what God has planned from the beginning and - if I will simply open my eyes to what God places in my life - I can eventually experience the same joy that Mary found that first Easter morning.

There's hope for Paul yet...

So I’ve been cruising this new blog I’ve found - which is absolutely phenomenal – and I was reading an article one of the bloggers posted on 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Specifically, they addressed the cultural and historical forces at play during the time this epistle was written, and – subsequently – how our lack of knowledge on these issues might aid in an unintentional misinterpretation of these verses.

Specifically, this blogger addressed Paul’s famous encounter with Artemis and the Ephesians.

“In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” 1 Timothy 2:9-15.

Many an independent, freedom-loving woman has had significant problems with these verses, and rightfully so: if taken on a literal and surface level, they seem both demeaning and unjust. What happened to “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28), right?

This blogger, beautiaful, asserts that these verses are geared specifically to the women at the Church in Ephesus (which was suffering from the injection of neighboring religions and the threat of doctrinal blending). The blogger asserted the following:

1) Verse 9, the verse which extols women to “dress modestly” without “braided hair, gold, or pearls” is not an outcry against beauty, but against pagan beauty. Apparently, these adornments were trademarks of the women who worked Artemis’s temple and, in order to avoid spiritual confusion, Paul didn’t want them adorning another faith’s spiritual robes. (Just like we wouldn’t want a Muslim wearing a Yamika or a rabbi wearing a priest’s robes).

2) The blogger also suggests that the word “silence” is often misinterpreted from its meaning in the original Greek, which is “peacefulness” or “peaceable-ness” – especially the sort of peacefulness found in a learning/educational environment. In other words, Paul was first arguing for these women to receive an education (what a novel concept) and that, because they were being misled by the heretical teachings of the Artemis cult, they should not be teaching these heresies to the Christian body. They had to submit to the true teachings of Christ – as all Christians do.

3) The blogger also contends that the word “authority” from the Greek word “authentin” is also translated in a misleading manner in many modern texts. “Authentin” can apparently also be translated as a violent sort of dominance – the sort associated with sexual abuse, crime, or unchecked power. Here, Paul is arguing that women should not “dominate” or “abuse” men – like those who would adhere to an Amazonian tradition would encourage women to do.

4) The “Adam and Eve” order speech is an attempt to counteract the Gnostic argument that Eve became “enlightened” when she took the forbidden fruit: instead of merely racked with sin. The Gnostics, apparently, glorified Eve’s role in the Fall of Eden, trying to paint as something beautiful and admirable instead of heartbreaking. This verse is less about man’s superiority to women and more about a reiteration of the facts and doctrinal clarity.

5) The women will be “saved” through childbearing is a call for women to place their faith in God, not a pagan goddess, to keep them save and alive through the birthing process.

All in all, I found this article to be absolutely smashing. I love the spirit and intelligence of the arguments. However, being an English major - one who heavily focused on myth and folk lore during my college course work, I had a couple of small qualms I’d like to address. Subsequently, I’d like to offer some alternative pov’s.

The blogger of the traditional blog asserts that the people of Ephesus were drawn so intensely to Artemis because of her roles in fertility rituals and childbearing:

"Ephesus was a decadent Asian city, whose focal point was the fertility goddess, Artemis. The Romans called her Diana. Artemis is said to be the twin of Apollo and the daughter of Zeus and Leto. The cult of Artemis was particularly alluring for women because Artemis was believed to protect her female worshippers during and after childbirth. Plus, women were viewed as superior to men, possessing secret divine knowledge. Men were drawn to this cult as well because sex was part of the worship rituals, where men would receive divine knowledge through engaging in sexual rituals with female priestesses" (beautiaful).

*drum roll* Cue the entrance of my quirked eyebrow and questions.

Traditionally, in so far as I have been taught and trained through my college coursework, it is my understanding that Artemis is not the "fertility" goddess that this blogger is depicting her as. In her original incarnation, Artemis is - indeed - the twin of Apollo and the daughter of Zeus, but I think this blogger unintentionally omitted one crucial thing: Artemis was a virgin.

In fact, Artemis was synonymous with virginity and sportsmanship (specifically game hunting, archery, etc). Artemis also later became associated with the moon, cycles, etc (in direct contrast with her brother, Apollo, who is associated with the sun, diurnal reality etc). In her original myth, Artemis begs her father not to get married because she doesn't want to be "dominated" by men. She has no fear of sex or men: she just doesn't want to lose her freedom, so she chooses to abstain. Her priestesses, likewise, would have had the same views: they too would have abstained from fertility rights and would have avoided contact with men.

It was Hera, actually— not Artemis— who was the original goddess of childbirth and fertility. That was her official station as the "queen" of all Greek goddesses. She - and occasionally Demeter - were the ones women offered incense and prayers to in order to ensure a safe birth. Artemis didn’t become associated with childbirth until the Hellenistic era, usurping that role from older, more ancient Greek goddesses.

In light of this information, I think a slight reinterpretation of this blogger’s reinterpretation is in order. :P

I’d be curious to know where she got her info and what her sources were. In so far as I know, priestesses of Artemis would be anything BUT members of an orgiastic, fertility cult; to do so would be to defy the very nature of their virginal, patron goddess.

So I would like to offer the following potential revisions to this blogger’s assertions:

Assertion 1: Good to go. Love it and it works.
Assertion 2: Also agree. Again, good to go.

Assertion 3: Again, would strongly agree, especially given the prominence of the Amazonian myth. However, I’d like to add a couple of thoughts. The fertility cults that the blogger refers to are most likely either a) cults of Hera/Aphrodite or b) an off-branch of Artemis working outside the established doctrinal practices of the main sect.

Either way, women followers of the Artemis cult most likely prized one value above all others: freedom. Just as their patroness abandoned the affections of men to ensure her personal liberty, so too did these women; they become her chaste priestesses and modeled themselves after her. However, like those who followed the Amazonian line of thinking, there is always potential for liberty to be abused. I think that perhaps the followers of Artemis needed some reassurance that - when they abandoned their faith and their power - that they would not be abused and subjugated by men. Hence Paul’s subsequent charge in 1Timothy 3:1-10:

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

Yes, Paul has forbidden the women in this church from teaching at this time due to the heresies they had been taught to believe. Logically then, I think there was a great fear on the part of these women that they would now become victims of abuse, of authentin. I think that, by going over the qualities that a good deacon, a good leader, should possess, Paul does two things:

1) He provides an example for other leaders to follow and emulate
2) By showing these sorts of leaders to be “good” leaders, he lessens the women’s need to fear abuse during the season in their lives where they are asked to peacefully learn: not lead. This would be especially meaningful for the followers of Artemis, who would have potentially lived their lives in fear of male abuse.

I’d even go so far as to suggest that authentin abuse was common practice at Ephesus, which is why more than one sermon is delivered to the Ephesians on this issue:

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-33).

Again, I’d assert that there are multiple purposes to this sermon:
1) Paul challenges both sexes to behave in a Christ-like manner towards one another
2) Paul challenges the spiritually wayward Ephesian women to learn peaceably from their husbands who – since they had been formally trained in the Judeo-Christian tradition – had more insight in matters of traditional doctrine. (Hence Paul’s previous call for women to be educated so that they would not remain ignorant!)
3) Paul also challenges the “spiritually educated” men not to use their knowledge as a license to abuse or mistreat their wives; they are called to help make their wives “clean” again by washing through the Word (God’s; not Artemis’s!), and – by helping her learn the truth she had been denied access to – encourage her to regain a relationship with God that would leave her blameless, pure, and forgiven.

Assertion 4: Again, again: right on the money.

Assertion 5: Yes, I agree, but I’d like to add another thought: yet another reason women joined Artemis’s cult was the desire to abstain from marriage, sex, and the risk of dying through childbirth. Many of these women might have legitimately feared being “forced” into marriage and into bearing children – risking both their way of life and their very lives – by converting to Christianity. I would be curious to know of the original meaning of the word “in” or “through” depending upon your translation, in 1Timothy 2:15:

“Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control”.

Perhaps, in addition to challenging women to put their lives in God’s hands, Paul was also reassuring them that they would still their liberty. Maybe being saved “from” childbearing was also being subtly implied so that, if they chose, these women could still remain single and serve God: they did not have to become wives and mothers to fulfill their calling – something that had to be hugely empowering for these women. Furthermore, this idea of Christian singlehood something Paul extols not only for women, but men too! He reiterates this idea to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:32-39):

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

When looked at from all angles and when examined in light of the cultural and historical elements of this time period, I can happily say: Wow. What a sermon.

I might even be starting to like Paul.

Just a little bit.

Get it, girl!

Just found an awesome new blog:http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/.
Great stuff. Some really smart ladies run this thing and, though I've only just begun exploring it, but it looks promising. A love an honest debate, and this site offers some great ammo. I love their post on the re-interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Check it out! :D