Recap (February 28-March 6)

On bekahcubed

Book Reviews:

Photo Albums:

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

On the web

Laugh out loud funnies:

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

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

News to take note of:

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

Thought-provoking posts:

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

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

Videos worth seeing:

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

    HT: Collateral Bloggage

Pseudonymous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Your Kingdom Come

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

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

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

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

~Why we love the church, page 39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thankful Thursday: Miscellaneous

Thankful Thursday banner

I’m thankful for peanut soup in lab.

I’m thankful for sweater-weather outdoors.

I’m thankful for a ride to my car.

I’m thankful I didn’t lose my purse.

I’m thankful that my teaching went well.

I’m thankful for Sabine’s compliments.

I’m thankful for my students.

I’m thankful that there’s sunshine.

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

I’m thankful for getting some grading done.

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

I’m thankful that God is.

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

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


Christian Conspiracy Theory?

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

Endangered Species Ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This should not be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Ridiculously busy

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

I don’t know why. But I do.

For instance, on today’s agenda?

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

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


Thinking about God

I mentioned last December, when I reviewed The Lord’s Supper: Five Views edited by Gordon Smith, that I had let my theological muscles grow flabby from misuse. I’ve also noticed, in my jaunts around the bookie blog-o-sphere, that my reading is lacking in one area: I don’t read much on God, on doctrine, on theology. What’s more, while I think for a living as a dietitian, a graduate student, and a teaching assistant, there’s one thing I’ve somehow stopped thinking about. I’ve stopped thinking about God.

I didn’t make any New Year’s Resolutions this year, but I have developed a goal of sorts, an emphasis for the year. I want to think about God this year. I want to exercise my mind towards the things of God. I want my mind to be renewed, my thoughts to be transformed by His thoughts. I want to become theologically buff.

So I’ve been reading, I’ve been listening, I’ve been digging in Scripture. And I’ve been thinking.

I can’t say that my thoughts are anything profound, but I’ve enjoyed trying to wrap my mind around the greatness of God, His mercy, His nature, His character. I’ve enjoyed thinking about God.

One night, I could barely sleep because I was thinking so much–and because I kept rolling over to turn on my bedside lamp so I could jot down a new thought. I figured I’d share a little of my late-night musings about God with you.

On God delighting in Himself:

We say that God delights in truth, but since God is truth (John 14:7), isn’t this the same as to say that God delights in Himself?

On purpose:

God has a purpose in what He does, but He cannot or does not have purpose in who He is. Unlike man, God is not created. He was not created to fulfill a specific function, as man was.

God has no purpose for existing except that He is. His purpose is simply to be who He is.

A non-created being is not a “functional item” designed for a specific purpose. He just is–and everything else, every created being, derives its function from who He is.

Because we are created beings, we have a specific reason for our existence. We exist for a specific purpose set by our creator (for His glory, to display His image.) God, however, was not created. He has reasons for doing things–but not a reason for existing. He simply exists. He is.

Therefore, the purposes of God in what He does are not linked to a higher goal, per se, but to His nature. He acts as an overflow of who He is and to reveal Himself. Because His “function”, His “purpose” is “to be”. I am, He calls Himself. He is not the rain god, the sun god, the moon god. He is. He is not defined by a function, but by His being.

I have a purpose for being. God just is.

He is because He is. I am because He is. He is the purpose, the meaning behind all that is–including Himself. His reason for existing? To be. He exists because He exists.

So why does God act as He does? He acts out of His reason for existing “I am”. He acts as He does because of who He is, and in order to reveal who He is.

It’s nothing profound. It’s certainly nothing polished–just the musings of a girl whose mind is coming out of its sleep. Just the musings of a mind newly awakened to explore the depths of her Lord.

My mind was made to behold His glory. He is to be beheld. How delightful to let my mind begin to fulfill its purpose. And, as the card on my wall says “When anything in creation fulfills its purpose, it brings glory to God.” And that is indeed my ultimate purpose–to bring glory to God with every fiber of my being, including my mind.


AL (a potpourri of children’s books)

I’m still trecking (slowly) through my public library’s children’s picture books–mixing together my read every book goal with Carrie at Reading my Library‘s personal challenge.

Carrie is moving much more quickly than I–her last count had her at 558 picture books read (Wow!) and partway through the “B” section. In my defense, I don’t have any toddlers to read for–and I’m a full-time graduate student and teaching assistant.

Reading My Library

My last trip to the library gave me a modge-podge of books. The library had only one title per author for most of the authors in this trip–and I could find no discernible theme in what I found, except of course, that the author’s last names all began with the letters A and L.

The Butter Man by Elizabeth Alalou

The Butter Man by Elizabeth Alalou and Ali Alalou (illustrated by Julie Klear Essakalli) has a story-inside-a-story narrative. The young narrator is impatiently waiting for the couscous her baba (father) is cooking to be done. When she complains that she’s starving, her father begins telling her the story of himself, as a young boy in Morocco during a drought, waiting for the butter man. He and his family were hungry. There was no butter to dip their bread in. What’s more, the pieces of bread grew smaller and smaller with each day. To keep her son’s mind off the hunger–and to make the bread last longer–baba‘s mother tells him to sit by the road each day and wait for the butter man, who perhaps might give him some butter for his bread. If he ate the bread too soon, he would not have any butter to dip in the bread should the butter man come. So he waits each day with each day’s portion of bread, until the hunger is unbearable and he eats it without butter. Until one day, when he sees a man coming down the road. It’s not the butter man, but it’s even better.

I enjoyed this book. It’s a bit more text-heavy than the picture books intended for toddlers–it’s probably more suitable for slightly older children. But the cross-cultural story is engaging. The authors subtly contrast the waiting the narrator experiences–waiting for dinner to be done–with the waiting her father experienced in Morocco during a famine. The book gently encourages children to be patient–and to be thankful for what they have–without ever once mentioning a “moral”.

Louella Mae, She’s Run Away!, written by Karen Beaumont Alarcon and illustrated by Rosanne Litzinger, tells the story of a great search underway for Louella Mae, who has apparently run away. The story is told in lilting rhyme, with one stanza per layout. What makes this book unique and special, though, is that the last word of each stanza is left out, only to be revealed in the next page–allowing the reader to try to guess where the family will next search for Louella Mae. For example, one rhyme is…

“Round up the horses!
Hitch up the team!
Hop in the buckboard
and look by the…”

The next layout fills in the missing word “stream.” I enjoyed guessing at what location will be search next, and had a delightful surprise when Louella Mae turned out to be–well I won’t tell you what she turned out to be. You’ll just have to read the book!

Ten Little Wishes: A Baby Animal Counting Book I recognize the value of counting books, but I generally tend to hate them. I find them simplistic and boring. I mean, how many times can you handle “Two Birds”, new layout “Three Ladybugs”, new layout “Four Caterpillars”. Ughh!

So I wasn’t too excited when I found a counting book amongst my latest library pile. But I was pleasantly surprised. Ten Little Wishes: A Baby Animal Counting Book by Andrea Alban Gosline is NOT your typical counting book. Ten Little Wishes has a family taking their new baby on a walk through the countryside, taking a look at all the baby animals about and saying a wish for the baby at each stop. The family meets a doe and her 1 little fawn, a couple of mares and their 2 little foals… Each layout introduces a number, an animal, and the correct names for the adult and baby version of each animal.

All of this is done in sweet rhyme–

Around the corner, what a surprise!
10 new puppies with sleepy eyes.
A litter for Mama to cuddle and tend,
born before my story ends.

May baby make some special friends.

This book is definitely a keeper!

As a sidenote, the illustrations done by Lisa Burnett Bossi add an additional dimension to this book. I enjoy them as illustrations alone, but I especially enjoyed that they portrayed the father holding baby in a sling and mom and daughter wearing dresses. It’s a bit fun to see a little old-fashioned-ness in such a new book!


Back to regularly scheduled programming

After a brief (or really long, depending on how you look at it) hiatus into the murky world of “Love”, we will now be returning to regularly scheduled programming.

Except that I’m not exactly sure what regularly scheduled programming looks like any more.

Am I a wanna-be Mommy blogger?
Am I a book blogger?
Am I a thinking blogger?
Am I a crafty blogger?

Dunno. I’m somewhere in between.

So look forward to some eclecticism from bekahcubed–which I guess might have been what I’ve always had. But I’m not quite sure.

What category do YOU put me?

What category do you like reading most from me?

Tell me what you like. I can’t promise you I’ll give it, but I might. So let me know!


I’ve LOVED it

Love Month Banner

Thank you for sharing this Love Month with me.

This has been cathartic.

I’ve written over 25,000 words on the topic of love and purity and relationships and dating this month. The sad part is, this has only been the tip of the iceberg.

I appreciate your willingness to jump into my head for a while and to get a one-sided response to the one-sided messages I abhorred growing up.

For those of you who agreed with what I said and want to hear the rest of the iceberg–come chat with me, stop back in next year, and buy my book when it comes out. After all, with 25,000 words already written, I might as well just finish the book. (Okay, so the last two of those were a joke. Okay not really. No really. Well, I don’t know. Stick around, at any rate.)

For those of you who disagreed with what I said but didn’t comment–shame on you! We would have loved to have your comments. Actually, I’d still like your comments. So go back and comment, or e-mail me, or tell me about it in person. I’d like to continue to grow in this area–and learn both what’s helpful and what’s totally NOT helpful about what I say.

Is there something I didn’t address that you’d like to see addressed? Something you have expertise in? Something you think I might have expertise in? (Yeah, I doubt it!) Tell me about it. I wasn’t completely kidding about maybe doing it again next year–and I’ll need new topics and new guest bloggers. I wasn’t completely kidding about writing a book either (it’s not like it’d be the first time I toyed with the idea of writing)–and I’d need plenty of feedback.

Love month is over today, but the dialogue about love, purity, and relationships doesn’t need to be.

Instead, we can continue to pursue God in the nitty-gritty of our daily lives–living as singles, as married folk, as individuals, as the church. We can continue to present our whole lives–including our relationships–to Him as a living sacrifice.

I pray that in this upcoming year, you will discover the love of God in a new and glorious way. I pray that you will emerge from this next year more completely satisfied in Him–regardless of where life takes you and with whom.

Once again. Thanks for reading. I’ve enjoyed writing.

In fact, I’ve LOVED it.