Bathsheba was a hoochie, and other musings on a Friday morning
I have not posted my Lent reflections for the last few days, and need to get back on the wagon. However, this morning I have had some experiences that make me want to post some thoughts, although I have piles of doctoral work to tackle this weekend.
This morning I had an appointment at HRBlock for my taxes, and while this is not an advertisement, it is a statement of being pleased. I thought I would have to pay at least $1000; I came out $300 ahead, so I'm happy.
I stopped on the way home at my favorite local nursery and bought my garden dirt and manure. That is at least step one to getting into gardening. I can't not get into the dirt and try to grow some vegetables. It's a type of hope, I think, and a connection with my grandmother Josie.
Speaking of whom, I attended a reading and reception for Project Keepsake last night in Dalton at the Creative Arts Guild. If you come across this blog because of the title (which is deliberative provocative), please check out this link. My friend Amber Nagle edited and birthed this book of charming stories, and we hope it will become a series. My story is about my grandmother's ugly quilts. It was well received; it's funnier than I realized, but I have a sardonic twinge to my writing.
Now, as to the title; I was listening to Chuck Swindoll (I'm sure it was an old sermon) on WMBW. He was preaching on David's sin with Bathsheba, or at least that was part of it. I have heard dozens, probably scores of sermons. No one ever, ever talks about Bathsheba's role in it.
The prevailing idea was that in a Middle Eastern world, she was a girl who just couldn't say no. That is simply not true. She could have--but didn't. Why? Vanity? Inability to take a stand against the good looking king who was known to be a ladies' man? Not being a good Jewish girl? (I'm not sure of her heritage, but her husband was not a native Jew. While millions of women have been raped and had no choice in it, here is one who did have a choice, I would argue. On top of that, she is just as complicit in the rest of the plot at David was, ie., trying to kill her husband after the pregnancy.
Now, that is my view of it. Two points: a feminist would argue hegemony, oppression, marginalization, all that, but remember her husband was a man of power, too, so she wasn't some poor little peasant. Second, I feel that feminism wants women to have agency but at every turn denies it to them, or denies they can really use it to their best benefit. Oh, the examples we could give--especially in this whole birth control mandate for ACA, Hobby Lobby, etc.
Second point, therefore, is that I give Bathsheba agency; in fact, my version of her is more Lady MacBeth than victim Maybe I will rewrite the story as a novel and give my own reframed take on it, as Aronofsky has done on the story of Noah.
Speaking of which (poor use of same transition), I have read two long reviews on it. Think I'll save my money, although it sounds like a fascinating mess.
My final reflection will be hidden here at the bottom. What about this World Vision debacle? Even though they have reversed their decision, I think I will find a different destination for my economic justice dollars. I don't feel like giving to them is good stewardship any more; this decision is partly due to how many letters I get from them, at least two a week, to give money. They spend more in sending me these letters than I give, as does Prison Fellowship. I do appreciate what both these groups do, although other groups do what World Vision does.
My biggest question with World Vision is "What in the world were they thinking?" Why would they make that decision, and make it so public when (a) they didn't have to and (b) they knew it would causes such a firestorm and cost them millions in contributions. It shows a lack of wisdom on their parts that they would endanger their donation flow by wading into this controversy. Who do they think gives them money? The ACLU? Planned Parenthood? No, dumb little evangelicals like me who have lots of gay friends and colleagues but firmly believe that marriage does not have to be redefined or thousands of years of civilization rewritten.
In retrospect, if I were sponsoring a child, I wouldn't change my giving to them, because the child needs it and that has been proven to be the best way to raise children from poverty. I just don't think I will be touting them so much, mainly because of the lack of wisdom, not because of this specific issue.
Oh, yeah, my diversity teacher used this argument in class: Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality or gay marriage, therefore it is all right. And this guy teaches doctoral classes. Apparently he has never heard of the fallacy of argument from silence. You can't prove something from nothing. Secondly, Jesus did say something about gay marriage--He affirmed that marriage is a man and woman. Third, Jesus also didn't say anything about cannibalism, but I'm pretty sure he is against it. Jesus was a good Jew who affirmed all the moral OT law. Give me a break. He also claims that same-sex marriage has been around since the beginning of time. Usually these were people in very powerful, empirical positions, not the average Joe. The average Joe and Joann knew better. There are lots and lots of aberrations in human history. The exception does not make the rule.
If you don't like my position, I can live with that. I am supposedly in the minority (not on the planet, though), but at one time in history the majority thought the earth was flat; appeal to the majority is another logical fallacy, but liberals don't deal in logic. Just don't put words in Jesus' mouth. You might have perfectly good reasons for a position, and to be honest, I do think same-sex marriage is relevant to civil right issues, the strongest argument for it. Just don't bring Jesus into it when you don't believe in him anyway.
Addendum: Well, I just found out that it's a myth that people thought the earth was flat. Not sure if that's a myth, too. But the majority has often been wrong, and there are lots of examples, so the point remains. I thought about taking this post, or the last couple of paragraphs down, but I'll stay by it. I do believe that gays should have some rights, like civil unions, just not redefining marriage. It will end badly for those who disagree, who by the way are not just conservative Protestants like me but most of the third world, Muslims, Catholics, and orthodox Jews. We are told we are on the wrong side of history, but that is another logical fallacy, that history is a force, a monolithic unified personality. It's called hypostatization. I wasn't a debate coach for nothing.
This morning I had an appointment at HRBlock for my taxes, and while this is not an advertisement, it is a statement of being pleased. I thought I would have to pay at least $1000; I came out $300 ahead, so I'm happy.
I stopped on the way home at my favorite local nursery and bought my garden dirt and manure. That is at least step one to getting into gardening. I can't not get into the dirt and try to grow some vegetables. It's a type of hope, I think, and a connection with my grandmother Josie.
Speaking of whom, I attended a reading and reception for Project Keepsake last night in Dalton at the Creative Arts Guild. If you come across this blog because of the title (which is deliberative provocative), please check out this link. My friend Amber Nagle edited and birthed this book of charming stories, and we hope it will become a series. My story is about my grandmother's ugly quilts. It was well received; it's funnier than I realized, but I have a sardonic twinge to my writing.
Now, as to the title; I was listening to Chuck Swindoll (I'm sure it was an old sermon) on WMBW. He was preaching on David's sin with Bathsheba, or at least that was part of it. I have heard dozens, probably scores of sermons. No one ever, ever talks about Bathsheba's role in it.
The prevailing idea was that in a Middle Eastern world, she was a girl who just couldn't say no. That is simply not true. She could have--but didn't. Why? Vanity? Inability to take a stand against the good looking king who was known to be a ladies' man? Not being a good Jewish girl? (I'm not sure of her heritage, but her husband was not a native Jew. While millions of women have been raped and had no choice in it, here is one who did have a choice, I would argue. On top of that, she is just as complicit in the rest of the plot at David was, ie., trying to kill her husband after the pregnancy.
Now, that is my view of it. Two points: a feminist would argue hegemony, oppression, marginalization, all that, but remember her husband was a man of power, too, so she wasn't some poor little peasant. Second, I feel that feminism wants women to have agency but at every turn denies it to them, or denies they can really use it to their best benefit. Oh, the examples we could give--especially in this whole birth control mandate for ACA, Hobby Lobby, etc.
Second point, therefore, is that I give Bathsheba agency; in fact, my version of her is more Lady MacBeth than victim Maybe I will rewrite the story as a novel and give my own reframed take on it, as Aronofsky has done on the story of Noah.
Speaking of which (poor use of same transition), I have read two long reviews on it. Think I'll save my money, although it sounds like a fascinating mess.
My final reflection will be hidden here at the bottom. What about this World Vision debacle? Even though they have reversed their decision, I think I will find a different destination for my economic justice dollars. I don't feel like giving to them is good stewardship any more; this decision is partly due to how many letters I get from them, at least two a week, to give money. They spend more in sending me these letters than I give, as does Prison Fellowship. I do appreciate what both these groups do, although other groups do what World Vision does.
My biggest question with World Vision is "What in the world were they thinking?" Why would they make that decision, and make it so public when (a) they didn't have to and (b) they knew it would causes such a firestorm and cost them millions in contributions. It shows a lack of wisdom on their parts that they would endanger their donation flow by wading into this controversy. Who do they think gives them money? The ACLU? Planned Parenthood? No, dumb little evangelicals like me who have lots of gay friends and colleagues but firmly believe that marriage does not have to be redefined or thousands of years of civilization rewritten.
In retrospect, if I were sponsoring a child, I wouldn't change my giving to them, because the child needs it and that has been proven to be the best way to raise children from poverty. I just don't think I will be touting them so much, mainly because of the lack of wisdom, not because of this specific issue.
Oh, yeah, my diversity teacher used this argument in class: Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality or gay marriage, therefore it is all right. And this guy teaches doctoral classes. Apparently he has never heard of the fallacy of argument from silence. You can't prove something from nothing. Secondly, Jesus did say something about gay marriage--He affirmed that marriage is a man and woman. Third, Jesus also didn't say anything about cannibalism, but I'm pretty sure he is against it. Jesus was a good Jew who affirmed all the moral OT law. Give me a break. He also claims that same-sex marriage has been around since the beginning of time. Usually these were people in very powerful, empirical positions, not the average Joe. The average Joe and Joann knew better. There are lots and lots of aberrations in human history. The exception does not make the rule.
If you don't like my position, I can live with that. I am supposedly in the minority (not on the planet, though), but at one time in history the majority thought the earth was flat; appeal to the majority is another logical fallacy, but liberals don't deal in logic. Just don't put words in Jesus' mouth. You might have perfectly good reasons for a position, and to be honest, I do think same-sex marriage is relevant to civil right issues, the strongest argument for it. Just don't bring Jesus into it when you don't believe in him anyway.
Addendum: Well, I just found out that it's a myth that people thought the earth was flat. Not sure if that's a myth, too. But the majority has often been wrong, and there are lots of examples, so the point remains. I thought about taking this post, or the last couple of paragraphs down, but I'll stay by it. I do believe that gays should have some rights, like civil unions, just not redefining marriage. It will end badly for those who disagree, who by the way are not just conservative Protestants like me but most of the third world, Muslims, Catholics, and orthodox Jews. We are told we are on the wrong side of history, but that is another logical fallacy, that history is a force, a monolithic unified personality. It's called hypostatization. I wasn't a debate coach for nothing.
Comments