Julie Clawson

onehandclapping

Menu
  • Home
  • About Julie
  • About onehandclapping
  • Writings
  • Contact
Menu

Friday Five – Christmas Crap

Posted on November 30, 2007July 10, 2025

So after that last post in which I affirm participating in the trappings of the Christmas season, I have to acknowledge that a lot of those trappings are well, just plain stupid and pointless. Take for instance the Cavalcade of Bad Nativities. One really has to wonder why anyone would spend money on such abundance of kitsch and crap, but it piles up every year. And I fully admit to owning my fair share of Christmas crap, I swear it just appears out of nowhere.

So in the spirit of acknowledging the pointless and tacky elements of the season (and because I haven’t done one of these in a long time), I’m posting my answers to the RevGalBlogPals Friday Five – grumbly Christmas edition.

Please tell us your least favorite/most annoying seasonal….

1) dessert/cookie/family food – Snickerdoodles. I usually get at least a plate or two of these each year in one cookie exchange or another and I honestly can’t stand the things. For one I hate hard cookies of all types. And secondly the false advertising in the name just annoys me. I mean SNICKERdoodle – I’m expecting a gooey confection of chocolate and caramel, but instead I get a generally overcooked and crispy sugar cookie dusted with cinnamon. Very disappointing. Oh and I can’t stand ham either.

2) beverage (seasonal beer, eggnog w/ way too much egg and not enough nog, etc…) – Champagne. Okay so I’ve only ever had cheap Champagne (technically sparking wine and not really Champagne), but I’m not a fan. Give me a cocktail or even better a nice steaming cup of spiced wine, but I’ll pass on the bubbly.

3) tradition (church, family, other) – White Elephant Gift Exchanges. The idea of going out to spend money on crappy kitsch that no one needs just to be cheezy represents all the things wrong with consumerism in America. Even when the point is to pass on cheezy crap that you already own, it seems that we are just showing the world that we have so much money that we own completely worthless crap that we can joke about. If we have to do a gift exchange I would much rather bring “nice” or usable gifts. A bottle of wine, a plate of fudge – stuff that will be used and not just end up in a landfill somewhere. (and yes I am ranting because I was voted down last night as our church planned our Christmas party…)

4) decoration – Hands down those giant inflatable lawn things. Tacky. Creepy. Just plain annoying.

5) gift (received or given) – Every year for Christmas growing up my grandfather gave me a porcelain statuette. Nice ones from designer names. Besides now having a collection of porcelain animals that I have no clue what to do with, what kind of gift is this for a 6 year old to open at Christmas?

BONUS: SONG/CD that makes you want to tell the elves where to stick it. – I’ve always hated Away in a Manger. The stupid lines that proclaim that the little baby Jesus was too holy of a baby to cry and the sing-songy tune that gets stuck in your head. And speaking of cheezy nativity sets. Emma has the Little People Nativity which, of course, plays Away in a Manger. She loves the thing and plays it incessantly. The joy.

So with this outpouring of Christmas Spirit are we ready to get this season underway? :)

Read more

Why I Christmas Shop

Posted on November 29, 2007July 10, 2025

In light of recent blog posts and Buy Nothing/Make Something days I feel like I need to state this as a confession – I Christmas shop. Of course there are a few of you who read this blog who might not understand the dilemma. For you, buying gifts for friends and family at Christmas is just a natural part of Christmas. But in this missional/justice oriented subculture (of which I am obviously deeply committed to) I feel like Christmas shopping is a sin I need to confess to committing. Kinda like how I still use disposable diapers for Emma.

Let me clarify. I am very much against rampant consumerism and greed. The American mindset that more is better and “I want, I want” is disgusting and displays more allegiance to an economic system than it does to way of Christ. A recent Walmart commercial displays this dichotomy as it has a mother of twins saying, “Sure, peace on earth sounds great, but unless I buy two of everything there is no peace in my house.” The greed and need to buy just for the sake of getting something doesn’t sit well with me. I didn’t go shopping this past weekend, so I guess I participated in Buy Nothing day, but I didn’t end up making anything either. Basically I lounged around and watched many episodes of Gilmore Girls and The Office on DVD with my in-laws.

So while I can eschew forms of extreme consumerism, I’m a bit more uncomfortable with some of the messages I’m hearing in the emerging/missional camps this year. The recent round of ridicule of Brian McLaren for his request that people buy his book reveal attitudes of judgementalism towards anyone who spends money on anything. Personally I’m not a huge fan of utterly rejecting the economic system. I’m more for engaging with it thoughtfully and ethically. Which is what led to this confession. This Christmas I am buying gifts. I am not just giving charity. I am not buying only Fair Trade. I am not making my gifts. And I am not going Dark for Darfur.

I like giving gifts. I especially like giving practical gifts that people will use and enjoy. Sure I will give charity, sure I’ll limit how much I give, and sure I’ll buy Fair Trade when possible. But I am also going to do my best to give gifts people want and need. I talk enough about Fair Trade that I assume people know that I am very very supportive of the concept. But I don’t see the need to buy fairly traded home decor gifts that people don’t really want or need just so that I can buy something fairly traded. Similarly I sew a lot and run a small quilting business. But raggy quilts aren’t everyone’s style, so I’m not going to clutter someone’s home with a gift they don’t like but feel obligated to use and display. To me to buy fair trade or spend time making something (that isn’t needed or wanted) just to be able to give something is more consumeristic and wasteful than ordering them a book they really want from their Amazon Wishlist.

So yes I participate in the cultural norms of the season. I don’t reject the trappings of the holiday or fear them unnecessarily. I guess you can say I try to participate in them in moderation. I give gifts, but attempt to do so thoughtfully. I’m not obsessing over decorations, or parties, or cookies (although I have in years past). I have no problem enjoying the cultural traditions alongside the religious roots. And I am trying to not let everyone else make me feel guilty because of it.

Read more

The History of Cooking

Posted on November 27, 2007July 10, 2025

I recently caught part of a documentary on the history of cooking classes (yes, I was watching the Food Network).  I was struck by how the story behind something as basic as cooking revealed gender inequalities.  Essentially in pre-WW2 America, cooking was seen as woman’s work.  There was nothing glamorous or special about preparing food, it was just a means to the end of getting fed.  The first cooking classes were offered to poor women to teach them a skill they could use to earn a meager living (generally as a cook/maid for a wealthy family).  But after WW2 all of that changed.  The men who had learned to cook as soldiers returned home from war and sought to earn a living using their new-found skills.  All of a sudden cooking and working in newly created restaurants became a respectable middle class occupation that earned a decent living.  But of course it was only after men blessed the cooking world with their presence that cooking earned respect as a profession.   Even still everyday cooking is still considered woman’s work and gathers little respect, while professional cooking is dominated by men and is highly respected.

Hearing stories like that frustrates me.   To be reminded of what low value women have been given historically is sobering.  Our accomplishments and our work are deemed unimportant and not worthy of respect or decent pay (until men decide to join in as well).  The cynical side of me wants to call for more men to be stay-at-home parents to see if that will actually raise the respect level for that particular occupation.  I’m sure if enough men start doing it, they’d somehow start being paid to be a dad as well.

Not that I think any profession should ever be restricted to just men or women.  We all should be given equal respect (and pay) for whatever job we undertake no matter our gender.  But given the realities of history and our world today, that doesn’t always happen.  Women often don’t receive respect for their work and are still the minority in many fields dominated by men.  Often men don’t want to share the respect of their particular career with women (are they selfish or do they think we are not worthy?) or they don’t understand the difficulties women find when trying to enter those fields.  So as unfair as some have called it, it takes men sponsoring/encouraging/endorsing/apprenticing women to help us break into those fields as equals for women to even begin to be respected in the same way men are.  And while I don’t full agree that  it is unfair to help others, in these situations the inequality is even more unfair than the assistance, so why not “be unfair” in a positive way instead of a negative way?

I know this is just a typical gender issues rant, but the documentary irked me.  It of course presented the evolution of the cooking profession as a good thing no matter how telling it was of the rampant sexism in our country’s history.  I just wish the story would be different every once in awhile.

Read more

Symbols and Biblical Literalism

Posted on November 26, 2007July 10, 2025

I came across this section recently in Sallie McFague’s Metaphorical Theology that caught my attention. She writes –

But there is, I believe, an even deeper reason why religious literalism runs rampant in our time. It is not only that many people have lost the practice of religious contemplation and prayer, which alone is sufficient to keep literalism at bay, or that positivistic scientism has injected a narrow view of truth into our culture. While both are true, it is also the case that we do not see the things of this world as standing for something else; they are simply what they are. A symbolic sensibility, on the contrary, sees multilayered realities, with the literal level suggestive of meanings beyond itself. While it may have been more justified for people in earlier times to be biblical literalists since they were less conscious of relativity, as symbolic thinkers, they were not literalists… The claim can be made that our time is more literalistic than any other time in history. Not only were double, triple, and more meanings once seen in Scripture (and Scripture considered richer as a consequence), but our notion of history as the recording of “facts” is alien to the biblical consciousness.

So many of us so-called postmoderns are reacting to the flatness of scripture. We are presented with a truncated and stripped version of the bible that we are told holds meaning merely because it happened. That historical veracity was clung to as the central tenet of our faith until one day when we realized what a hollow construction that belief represented. Some of us walked away from the faith. Others took a fleeting glance back at tradition and discovered there a rich and multifaceted faith seeped in imaginative interpretation and symbolic understandings of truth. Our faith revived and we cherish scripture now more than we ever did before.

And we were called heretics. Accused of throwing out the bible and being enamoured with the new. Labelled as self-centered and rebellious. We were told to save our faith by returning to the flat and the hollow. And when we refused we were cast out as unbelievers.

Aren’t the vicissitudes of history great?

Read more

Sacred Space and Revolving Christmas Trees

Posted on November 25, 2007July 10, 2025

Recently Scot McKnight over at Jesus Creed posted some thoughts that touched on the physical aspects of churches and how that affects our worship. While that conversation focused on whether the church’s sacred space hinders the diversity of the church, I had to reflect on just how important space really is for worship.

I understand that the space one enters into in a church can set the tone for worship. Very different messages are sent with a room full of stained glass and pews all oriented to a pulpit as compared to a room full of couches arranged in a circle. The latter focuses one on receiving blessing, instruction, and edification from those privileged to occupy the pulpit. There are benefits to such an arrangement as it can serve to draw one’s attention to grander things outside of oneself. The former arrangement of couches invites community and promotes equity in the worship experience which is welcomed by some but avoided as uncomfortable by others. But regardless of how the worship is approached, it remains worship in both settings.

So while worship might be different depending on the setting of where you worship, I am uncomfortable with the idea that any particular setting could create better or worse worship. Is God more present or more glorified in a cathedral in Rome of hand-hewn stone and stained glass to lift one’s eyes to the heavens or in a tin roofed cement block structure in Haiti where all the hymns are sung in French (not Creole) because all they could get are cast off hymnals from France? How about in a mega-church stadium that seats 10,000 with the only symbol present being an American flag or in a rented bar with neon signs and pin-up girl calenders on the wall? Sure the theologies may differ and each church might be far from the path of actually serving God, but if individuals in each church are seeking to worship God in their particular setting, I can’t see how a value judgement could be made as to whose worship is better.

These sort of discussions remind me a bit too much of the questions the woman at the well asked Jesus regarding whether one should worship on the mountain or in Jerusalem. Jesus of course replied, “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (John 4:23) So while aesthetics and setting and the message our worship space sends are all valid considerations, if discussions of such get in the way of our worshiping the Lord in spirit and in truth, then we’ve run amok somewhere. And for that I am grateful because our worship space today was filled with tacky 1980’s Christmas decorations and revolving Christmas trees.

As a small church plant we rent space that is during the week a community center for mentally handicapped adults. It is a very functional space that retains a living room feel (couches and all that), but it is, um, a bit tacky. It has bright orange carpet and the decor generally consists of artwork done by the clients (generally of the crayon and gluestick variety). But then there are the holiday decorations. In mid-September we walked in one Sunday to discover Halloween gone wild. An entire pumpkin patch had planted itself in the foyer, plastic ghosts, skeletons, witches, and black cats graced the walls, and fake spider webs hung from every available space possible (complete with glow-in-the-dark spiders). We laughed about how we must be the first (pseudo)evangelical church ever to have a sanctuary decorated with witches and ghosts and just dealt with it. Well today the Christmas decor appeared – animatronic caroling dolls, fake snow, glitz and glitter, and revolving Christmas trees. The place looked like a department store circa 1985. But it’s still our worship space. And no matter how tacky the orange carpet, or plastic skeletons, or revolving trees may be, I can’t see how any of those things would make our worship any less pleasing to God. Sure there may be issues of whether such things prevent others from wanting to worship with us (which is an interesting discussion), but if our worship is done in spirit and truth no amount of plastic kitsch can diminish it’s validity or power.

Read more

Blessings, Thanksgiving, and Hunger

Posted on November 21, 2007July 10, 2025

As we Americans prepare for a day of utter gluttony tomorrow, I found Anna Quindlen’s back page editorial in this week’s Newsweek to be rather apropos. She writes on the devastating shortage of food recently in food pantries. –

The worst emergency food shortage in years is plaguing charities from Maine to California, even while the number of those who need help grows. The director of City Harvest in New York, Jilly Stephens, has told her staff they have to find another million pounds of food over the next few months to make up the shortfall. “Half as many pantry bags” is the mantra heard now that the city receives half the amount of emergency food than it once did from the Feds. In Los Angeles 24 million pounds of food in 2002 became 15 million in 2006; in Oregon 13 million pounds dwindled to six. It’s a cockamamie new math that denies the reality of hunger amid affluence.

There are many reasons why. An agriculture bill that would have increased aid and the food-stamp allotment has been knocking around Congress, where no one ever goes hungry. Donations from a federal program that buys excess crops from farmers and gives them to food banks has shrunk alarmingly. Even the environment and corporate efficiency have contributed to empty pantries: more farmers are producing corn for ethanol, and more companies have conquered quality control, cutting down on those irregular cans and battered boxes that once went to the needy.

This is a sobering reminder on the eve of a holiday generally used to preach the Christian values and origins of “our great nation.” Yet even in this remembrance we have somehow made it all about us. Now I’ve got no issue with family getting together for turkey and dressing or with the call to be thankful. But perhaps we could broaden our perspective. Instead of making construction paper pilgrim hats and handprint turkey placemats with our children in school and church, perhaps we should be out there collecting food and writing letters to the government imploring them to care for those in need. In our pious thanksgiving for all that we have been blessed with, it is good to be reminded that we need to in turn bless others. So instead of just remembering the origins and “Christian” roots of our country, perhaps we could put an effort into doing Christian things as a country. Like feeding the hungry.

But what am I doing to change that this year? Not a whole lot. I’m figuring it out too.

Read more

Disability – The Bible and Perfection

Posted on November 8, 2007July 11, 2025

To conclude my reflections on disability I want to focus on the issue that has been the biggest ongoing struggle for me to deal with, especially within the church. It is the concept of perfection – the idea of needing to be flawless before God. For most of my life, I thought that referred to spirituality, but I have recently been exposed to those who promote physical perfection as necessary for truly serving God.

To back up a bit, in our culture perfection (or at least the absence of any visible physical flaws) is worshipped. We all hear about the millions of dollars spent on cosmetic procedures and the obsession with having a sexy body. But beyond that such obvious flaws like missing a limb are becoming less and less tolerated. This of course ties in with the whole abortion issue. Parents are now bringing “wrongful life” lawsuits against doctors if the doctor doesn’t inform them with enough time to abort that their child will have a defect. Apparently giving a child with a defect a chance at life is just wrong in their eyes. I’ve had people argue to my face that abortion is needed in the case of birth defects. To one such person, I asked, “so are you saying I should have been aborted because I am missing my arm?” Her reply – “I wasn’t talking about you, you’re smart.” But the assumption by many in our society is that unless you are perfect you don’t even deserve to be born. I find it easy to disagree and fight that assumption in culture, but then I find it in scriptures and the church as well.

I had always heard the language of “pure and holy sacrifice” referring to the lambs led to slaughter. Then one day I read the stipulations for Priests making offerings to God –

Leviticus 21:16-23 “The LORD said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.”

Having been taught my whole life that “God made me this way” reading those words was hard. Missing a limb, being the way God intended a person to be, disqualified them from serving God. We weren’t perfect enough to for God. (granted women were automatically disqualified too, but that’s a different issue). Not only were we not perfect enough, we desecrate the sanctuary by our presence. Sure it could be assumed that after Christ came as a “perfect sacrifice for all” that such restrictions are lifted, but what really got to me was discovering that there are branches in the church that still promote these stipulations. In the Orthodox church you cannot be in church leadership if you have a physical defect (well except for the eye thing, they waive that one for people with glasses).

I honestly don’t get it. How does not being physically perfect disqualify a person from serving God? How does this make me any less holy than others? Sure there were tons of purity laws in the OT, all of which could be forgiven. But this was impurity for life. Reading passages like this and hearing about the policies of the Orthodox Church seem to me to fit more within the mindset of the Communists who sequester away the deformed children in Latvia or the parents who sue doctors for the “wrongful life” of their defected child. But while my worldview allowed me to accept such opinions from Communists and abortionists, I can’t seem to wrap my mind around how it fits in the Bible and the church. And so far I have yet to hear any interpretation of this passage that really makes sense. At best it just gets lumped in with all those other “Ancient Near-Eastern worldview” passages (like bashing babies’ heads against rocks) that basically just don’t make sense either.

So where does that leave me? I want my theology of disability to be that God made me to be me and uses me as I am. But the Bible seems to contradict that and tells me that I am unwanted and incapable of serving God because of my arm. I have chosen to just go ahead and serve God (as a disabled woman that obviously isn’t in the Orthodox church), but some days that choice can be hard to align with scripture.

Read more

Disability – Faith and Identity

Posted on November 7, 2007July 10, 2025

I am writing this week on my experience of disability – of missing my left arm. Growing up I heard two very contradictory messages about my arm from the church. The first was the mantra I was taught to tell people who asked about my arm – “This is the way God made me.” This was the way God wanted me to be and since we can’t question God there is no use in worrying about it. I’m missing my arm that’s just life. The second message I heard though was – “God can fix it.” Apparently even though God made me this way, He could fix the mistake if he wanted to. There were generally two options given for as to how God could fix me.

First, I have been told countless times that if I just prayed with enough faith for God to regrow my arm he would (the whole mustardseed and mountains thing). I always found this response odd because I grew up in Dispensational Cessasionist churches. We didn’t talk about miraculous healings, but apparently my arm was an exception. There were the times I believed that message and prayed for my arm to grow (and of course assumed my faith was too weak when it didn’t). There was never any mention of God’s will or basic laws of nature stuff, just the assumption that of course God would reward me with a new arm if my faith was strong enough. As I hear stories now of people trying to pray other physically manifest aspects of personality out of people (ADHD, Gayness..) I realize how utterly offensive such messages are. Just because we don’t fit into a cultural definition of normal, we are told that we must pray that God will change us to fit the dominant mold. Who we are is apparently less important than appearing to be just like everyone else.

The other way I was told that God would fix me would be in giving me a perfect resurrected body. It was apparently supposed to be a comfort that when I go to heaven after I die I will have two hands. But honestly, will I? If my life and my personality have been shaped by having one arm, why would my resurrected body necessarily be different? I don’t pretend to understand any of that stuff or assume how much of an echo of ourselves we will be in eternity, but the assumption that I would have two hands in heaven was always strange to me.

I guess my perceptions of God have changed over time. Do I still think that God “made me this way”? Maybe, I honestly don’t know. I don’t believe God micromanages everything, or does stuff like this to punish or build faith. But in creating me to me be, I can say God made me this way. I do believe in the possibility of miracles, but don’t see them as rewards for faith or as really all that necessary. And I don’t believe in wishing for a miracle to make a person appear more mainstream. And I’ve learned that living incarnationally in the world now, whatever our personal lot, is much more important than pining after what Heaven may be like. I want to be who I am not in spite of or in reaction to my arm. It is part of who I am, but doesn’t completely define me.

Read more

Disability – My Experience

Posted on November 6, 2007July 10, 2025

Recently I’ve had a few people actually ask me about my disability (a rare thing, but more on that later). So while I have mentioned it before on my blog, I thought I would finally get around to writing about it. I’ll post today about my personal experience and then have two more posts over the next few days about disability, theology, and faith.

In case the title of the blog didn’t clue you in, I only have one hand. I was born missing my left arm below the elbow. It is not genetic or drug related, but to this day doctors aren’t sure what other strange environmental toxins causes limbs to stop growing in the womb. But I have never known any different and learned how to do most everything with just one hand. Some things (like hammering in a nail) continue to elude me, but I’ve managed to figure out my own systems for most things. Missing an arm is a strange disability. I mean I am missing an entire limb, but am not really considered handicapped by many. I’m not handicapped enough to get a “Handicapped Parking Permit” and I’ve come to realize that making buildings handicapped accessible refers only to making buildings wheelchair accessible. I continue to struggle with many doors, most sinks, and all child safety systems (which I think require 3 hands for anyone to manage). Granted, I know I don’t face anywhere near the day to day challenges as many other disabled people. But it has nevertheless been interesting to live life as a disabled person who isn’t really permitted to call herself disabled.

I was never upset about missing an arm. I was never angry with God or any of those expected sorts of responses. I of course was called all sorts of names in elementary school. And I never understood why people thought it was funny to tell “stump” jokes around me. But missing am arm is part of who I am so it just had to deal with it.

Throughout my life I have worn various prosthetic arms and have hated them all. I had a hook as a toddler – that didn’t last long. I remember being told that when I was six I could get a new arm and waiting with anticipation for that day. I ended up being extremely disappointed with the contraption I ended up with that had straps that wrapped all around my body. I had been expecting an arm like Luke Skywalker’s. That was my first introduction to the wide gap between real science and science-fiction. Then in Jr. High I was fitted for two arms. One was a purely cosmetic arm that was modeled after my other arm. I could paint the nails and everything. If I wore long sleeves and people didn’t look too hard, it looked somewhat normal. The other arm was a myoelectric one that weighed a ton and looked hideous. By flexing certain muscles by the electrodes I could open and close the hand. It was fun for trying to pinch my brothers with an iron grip, but the huge battery pack sticking out of the arm was just too weird. I wore those for about 4 years and then gave up on prosthetic limbs altogether. And in case you were wondering how I managed to have 4 prosthetic arms in my life when those things usually run at least $20,000 apiece, I somehow was admitted to the Scottish Rite Hospital in Dallas which provides free services like that for children. But as nice as that was, the arms were just not useful to me. They were cumbersome and awkward with no real fine movements or sense of feel. Technology in arms has not developed much in the last 30 years since most research has gone into the much more necessary prosthetic legs. After abandoning my prosthetics (I still have one btw) I said I would never get another one until a real Luke Skywalker hand had been developed (which I saw a few years ago that there is a huge reward being offered anyone who can develop something like that, but our science is nowhere near that advanced yet). Plus as an adult I would never have the funds to cover a “cosmetic procedure” like getting a real arm.

What I find most interesting are the reactions I get from people. Talking about a person’s handicap is seriously taboo in our culture. Most adults avoid the topic and get embarrassed when their children point and stare. And it is the children who do ask, children and the poor. Children I understand. They have not yet been conditioned to pretend to ignore the realities of others, and as they ask “what happened to your hand?” there is always the unspoken “and will it happen to mine?”. Parents usually hush their children up and apologize to me for their audacity. But what really surprised me were the reactions I receive from the urban poor. There have been times when I have passed panhandlers asking for money, but once they see my arm they start apologizing for asking me for money. They ask me if I am okay and if I need anything. Similarly in cities with toilet fees, I’ve had bathroom attendants wave me through without charge because of my arm. The reaction I get is that of pity. It is an odd thing indeed to be treated by panhandlers on the street as pitiable and more in need of help than they are. It is something I have yet to figure out.

I think the most interesting and moving reaction I have had to my arm occurred in Latvia. I went on a missions trip to Latvia and Russia when I was in high school. At one point we visited a Hospital/Orphanage, although it was neither of those things in a traditional sense. It was a place where children born missing limbs or with other defects (often Chernobyl babies) were taken to be removed from society. This children were amazed that I as a “deformed” person was allowed to function as a normal member of society. It broke my heart that all of these kids were not allowed to offend the general public (or be a reminder of a government accident) by allowing people to see them. I have no clue if such homes still exist over there (I was there just a year after the fall of communism), perhaps in a cash strapped system there are no funds for hiding away the undesirable.

So I don’t mind talking about my arm. It is more embarrassing and awkward to have other people be embarrassed by it than for people to just ask about it. But if there is one reaction that seriously annoys me, it would be the one I get most often. It’s when people ask me if I am right or left handed. Perhaps people think this is a “safe” way to talk about my arm, but it drives me nuts. I don’t freaking have a left arm how can I be left handed! But apparently asking that question seems like the most natural thing ever to tons of people. But it is the reactions I get within the church that confuse me the most and I will address those over the next few days.

Read more

Everything Must Change

Posted on November 5, 2007July 10, 2025

So I am slowly making my way through Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change and have to this point not engaged in many of the conversations about it. I’ve lurked, but wanted to have actually read the book before I engaged. As usual I am most annoyed with all the people who are upset about McLaren’s book because it is different than the type of book they want him to write. Apparently if he doesn’t feature their personal pet theology as the central aspect of every single one of his books then he is guilty of heresy, or ignoring atonement, or downplaying scripture, or whatever. Can’t people just read books for what they are for crying out loud?

But anyway, I’ve enjoyed much of what I’ve read so far (although I do admit the typos are driving me crazy) and predicably the part that has resonated with me the most has been one of the most controversial passages. McLaren at one point takes Mary’s Magnificat and rewrites it to be more in-line with the message he had been exposed to in the church. I’ve included both below, the original Bible passage and McLaren’s rewrite –

Luke 1:46 – 55
And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers.”

“My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my personal Savior, for he has been mindful of the correct saving faith of his servant. My spirit will go to heaven when my body dies for the Mighty One has provided forgiveness, assurance, and eternal security for me–holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who have correct saving faith and orthodox articulations of belief, from generation to generation. He will overcome the damning effects of original sin with his mighty arm; he will damn to hell those who believe they can be saved through their own efforts or through any religion other than the new one He is about to form. He will condemn followers of other religions to hell but bring to heaven those with correct belief. He has filled correct believers with spiritual blessings but will send those who are not elect to hell forever. He has helped those with correct doctrinal understanding, remembering to be merciful to those who believe in the correct theories of atonement, just as our preferred theologians through history have articulated.” Everything Must Change, p107, Brian McLaren

His rewrite has caused not a few people to become seriously angry at his audacity to reinterpret scripture as well as for his (perceived) caricaturizing of conventional evangelical theology. Many claim that his rewrite has no resemblance to any actual theology and so is unfair on his part to write as if it does. Brian McLaren clarified why he rewrote the Magnificat recently on Scot McKnight’s blog by saying, “My purpose is just to show the difference between the assumptions I was taught to bring to the text and what the text seems to me to actually be saying. It’s because I love the real Magnificat that I wanted to show how many of us unintentionally empty out its original meaning and then refill it with something different.”

I’m sure there are a lot of people out there who have never been exposed to the sorts of theological messages that McLaren presents in his rewrite. And I am sure that there are others who have been exposed to such theology, but who also are grounded in the revolutionary words of the real Magnificat. But I never was. I never even heard the Magnificat until 2 years ago. That part of the story was skipped over and dismissed, probably because it had to do with Mary and she was always avoided as “too Catholic.” I also was told that the Beatitudes only applied to the afterlife. These messages of hope for the oppressed were never ever part of the message I heard at church. But everything in McLaren’s rewrite came through loud and clear. His words were very representative of my reality. So while I am not naive enough to assume that everyone shares my reality, I would appreciate it if others would stop denying that my reality exists.

I have found deep spiritual insight through reading the Magnificat (the real one) over the last couple of years, but it took removing the lens I had been taught to encounter scripture with in order for that to be possible. So I think McLaren’s use of a possibly shocking rewrite is justified to help readers examine how they really do approach scripture. Or at least theoretically that would be the goal…

Read more
  • Previous
  • 1
  • …
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • …
  • 83
  • Next
Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson
[email protected]
Writer, mother, dreamer, storyteller...

Search

Archives

Categories

"Everything in life is writable about if you have the outgoing guts to do it, and the imagination to improvise." - Sylvia Plath

All Are Welcome Here

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
fb-share-icon
Instagram
Buy me a coffee QR code
Buy Me a Coffee
©2025 Julie Clawson | Theme by SuperbThemes