#(which is a common sentiment for me when reading the ec)

[trash-tzar]

Can somebody ask Nora what the difference between the exy pro league and major league is, I'm trying to fix her sport.

[librfinalproject]

Here’s Why You Should Be Reading 1980′s Novels Right Now

Even to put aside creations of genius like leg warmers and high waisted jeans, we still have a lot to learn from the decade of big hair, big TV, and even bigger greed. Here are three books from the 1980’s, and why they’re still absolutely worth your time.

First up is The Handmaid’s Tale. Margaret Atwood’s highly praised speculative novel The Handmaid’s Tale is an account of the life of a woman in a society that considers her less than woman. She’s more important for her parts. That society, the Republic of Gilead, is a dystopian, totalitarian theocracy that replaced the government of the United States in the name of “a return to traditional values” (Atwood 7). Due to low birth rates caused by viruses and pollution, a new order was implemented in which society is modeled after extreme religious conservatism, and fertile women are forced to be positioned as “Handmaids” for the sole purpose of serving as child bearers for the Commanders and their Wives.

Limitations on reproductive freedoms are not something contemporary women will be wholly unfamiliar with. Since the 1970’s, women in the United States have had their legal right to determine their own terms for pregnancy or termination, though there are still many challenges that affect vulnerable women particularly in rural areas. But recently, following the blocking of the Supreme Court nomination from the sitting but outgoing president and the election of a casually authoritarian conservative president in 2016, these protections have come under question.

Donald Trump has had the opportunity to nominate and appoint two conservative judges to the Supreme Court, and states have already begun implementing “trigger laws;” that is, legislation that upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade would criminalize abortion. I can’t help but think of then eighteen year old Evelyn Beatriz Hernandez Cruz of El Salvador. In 2016, Cruz unknowingly was pregnant following repeatedly being raped by a gang member, and experienced a stillbirth in her home. In 2017, she was sentenced to thirty years in prison ("El Salvador Rape Victim Jailed…:”).

Such severe real-world examples aren’t necessary to see the reflections of the kind of extreme conservatism that The Handmaid’s Tale brings up. Offred, the narrator of the novel that is able to give us the perspective of the Handmaids of Gilead, at one point says that “a rat in a maze is free to go anywhere, as long as it stays inside the maze” (Atwood 165). Mazes aren’t all visible to us, but they’re confining nonetheless. Earlier in the narrative, Offred describes “then,” before Gilead:

I never ran at night; and in the daytime, only beside well frequented roads. Women were not protected then. I remember the rules, rules that were never spelled out but that every woman knew: Don’t open your door to a stranger, even if he says he is the police. Make him slide his ID under the door. Don’t stop on the road to help a motorist pretending to be in trouble. Keep the locks on and keep going. If anyone whistles, don’t turn to look. Don’t go into a laundromat, by yourself, at night… Now we walk along the same street, in red pairs, and no man shouts obscenities at us, speaks to us, touches us. No one whistles. There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from (24).

These rules that no one talks about, but all women know are invisible mazes, and this isn’t fiction. Women are forced to mentally and physically wind their ways around the dangers and obstacles of the patriarchy. Atwood published The Handmaid’s Tale in 1986, and the struggles she comments on through Offred are just as prevalent now in 2019 as they were then, if not more. Irene Cambra Badii writes that the story of The Handmaid’s Tale, told in both the original novel and the new television series, shows a “distinctive characteristic of the patriarchal system with respect to conception of women: the social mandate of motherhood. Patriarchy considers reproduction as a basic social function, in which women play an indispensable role” (182). Many contemporary readers will not enjoy this book, but for all the right reasons, I believe. It’s crooked, eerie, and absolutely uncomfortable oftentimes. I don’t think The Handmaid’s Tale is a book that is meant to be enjoyed, but I believe that’s the reason that it’s as important now as it ever has been.

Secondly is The House on Mango Street. The House on Mango Street, Sandra Cisneros’s 1980’s poetic and understated novel, consists of short vignettes which detail moments in the childhood of Esperanza, a young girl navigating her life in a seemingly forgotten, run-down neighborhood. Esperanza and her sister Nenny come of age in this neighborhood, and they see some of the difficulties that people, especially women, face.

The book is dedicated “a las mujeres,” or, to the women, a common subject in the novel. The narrator is particularly interested in the stories of women, children, and the home environment itself. Stories like “Darius & the Clouds” is exemplary of the novel as a whole. In style, like the other chapters, it’s short, has childlike diction, and is packed by Cisneros with details about Darius, one of the neighborhood boys, doing things like chasing girls with sticks that have touched critters, as neighborhood boys do. The story opens:

You can never have too much sky. You can fall asleep and wake up drunk on sky, and sky can keep you safe when you are sad… You all see that cloud, that fat one there? That’s God, Darius said. God? somebody little asked. God, he said, and made it simple (33).

This informality continues throughout the novel, and gives each and every character a lifelike quality that makes the reader even more invested in these kids and families than he or she might be otherwise. Though we get short descriptions of the situation that Esperanza and her family are in, and Mango Street as a whole, details about the kids and their dynamic are what really distinguish the setting and characters of the novel. Darius’s story in particular echoes what seems to be much of the theme of the novel as well. Cisneros writes that there is too much sadness on Mango Street, but the kids “take what [they] can get and make the best of it” (33). What the kids make the best of in this story is the sky, though we see this repeated in many ways, from sky to hand-me-down high heels to coconut and papaya juice.

Many of the stories deal with environment, and the subject of nature is a recurring one in this book. Cisneros seems to have a deep appreciation for nature; she speaks extensively (through Esperanza and in the author’s truly beautiful introduction to the novel) about the type of garden she would like to have, and the type of house, and furnishings, and life as it relates to these things. Esperanza’s words and experiences are marked by the power of one’s environment. We can see this as Cisneros’s appreciation of beauty as well as a sort of political statement echoing the “All brown all around, we are safe” sentiment in “Those Who Don’t,” or possibly exposing some of the privileges that Esperanza notices in people outside of her street, where women may not be forced to “sit their sadness on an elbow” (29, 11). Cisnero writes:

Those who don’t know any better come into our neighborhood scared. They think we’re dangerous. They think we will attack them with shiny knives. They are stupid people who are lost and got here by mistake. But we aren’t afraid. We know the guy with the crooked eye is Davey the Baby’s brother, and the tall one next to him in the straw brim, that’s Rosa’s Eddie V., and the big one that looks like a dumb grown man, he’s Fat Boy, though he's not fat anymore nor a boy (29).

The novel beautifully and skillfully demonstrates an understanding of a life indistinguishable from the politics of feminism, art, poverty, and the Latinx family that Cisneros articulates in her introduction, and truly isn’t a book to miss. In “Coming of Age in a Divided City: Cultural Hybridity and Ethnic Injustice in Sandra Cisneros and Veronica Roth” Susanna Roszak connects Mango Street to many of the currently most popular young adult novels, like Veronica Roth’s Divergent and Lauren Oliver’s Delirium; she suggests examining these texts “reveals ways in which they echo current issues of race and ethnicity without naming them as such” (61). Not only has this book stayed relevant since the 1980’s, but it will be enjoyed by today’s young adult readers in much the same way as the chart-topping books they’re used to consuming as well. This is one of those pieces of literature that is so lovingly curated with the markers of a street in a neighborhood that the author seems to truly know that it can seem absolutely timeless, in 2019 or otherwise, and whether you can relate to the characters or not, it’s an unexpectedly beautiful and most valuable place to exist for the couple of hours readers can lose themselves on Mango Street.

The third 1980’s novel we should all be paying attention to is The Color Purple. The Color Purple is set in early twentieth century rural Georgia and is told in a series of letters to God from our narrator, Celie. Celie grew up being raped and abused by her father, and then was transferred to the home of “Mr.,” where she endured similar abuses. The one good thing she found when moving to be a part of and take care of Mr.’s family was his photo of his past lover, Shug Avery.

Shug and Celie become best friends, and, eventually, lovers as well. Shug, an experienced blues singer, takes Celie under her wing and helps her realize her own strength and independence, and even reconnects her with her sister, Nettie. Shug tells Celie that her “first step away from the old white man was trees. Then air. Then birds. Then other people” (Walker 73). In her exploration of green-feminist politics, “Ecowomanism: Black Women, Religion, and the Environment,” Melanie Harris points out the return to spirituality found in the environment, and the type of environmentalism that comes out of that. In a modern, technological society, there is little room for inner-lives, and many turn to literature, religion, and some even to a focus on nature. If we began to need this in the 80’s, we certainly only need it more now. Harris is interested in the connection between modern social justice and environmental justice. She believes that we can use the example of Celie and Shug as a “literary example as a source from which to glean ethical values that can help shape earth honoring ethics, earth honoring faiths and eco-theologies” (27).

Not only is The Color Purple an inspiring novel with timeless struggles and a poignant view at the type of intersectional struggles black women have faced, it also is a subtle reminder of the type of love for nature that Walker, in her books and in her definition of “womanism” advocates for. In 2019, while many of those governing the country continue to deny climate-science, but scientists’ estimates become more and more bleak, a little reminder of the preciousness of life and the precarity of nature as we know it will never hurt. Some believe that due to “the connections made between women and nature... women are disproportionately affected by environmental abuses throughout the globe, women have, an ‘epistemological privilege’ or deeper knowledge about earth systems than men” (Harris 32). These theories are fascinating, and only growing as these concerns become more immediate. Reading Walker’s theories on nature, womanism, and The Color Purple may shed light on some of what the importance of this new focus may be.

Works Cited

Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid's Tale. 1st ed., Anchor Books, 1998.

Badii, Irene, et al. “The Mandate of Birth. Bioethical and Biopolitical Issues Regarding the TV Series The Handmaid’s Tale.” Revista de Medicina y Cine / Journal of Medicine and Movies, no. 3, 2018, p. 181. EBSCOhost, doi:10.14201/rmc.19091.

Cisneros, Sandra. The House on Mango Street. Vintage Contemporaries, 2009.

El Salvador Rape Victim Jailed 30 Years For Stillbirth". Aljazeera.Com, 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/el-salvador-rape-victim-jailed-30-years-stillbirth-170707062208443.html.

Harris, Melanie L. “Ecowomanism: Black Women, Religion, and the Environment.” Black Scholar, vol. 46, no. 3, Fall 2016, pp. 27–39. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00064246.2016.1188354.

Roszak, Suzanne. "Coming of Age in a Divided City: Cultural Hybridity and Ethnic Injustice in Sandra Cisneros and Veronica Roth." Children's Literature, vol. 44, 2016, pp. 61-77. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/chl.2016.0022

Walker, Alice. The Color Purple. London: Women's Press, 1992. Print.

[empty-church]

Review of Eaton's "12 Reasons Millennials Are Over Church"

About a month ago a friend of mine asked me to give him my opinion about a blog post entitled "12 Reasons Millennials Are OVER Church" by Sam Eaton (The headings 1-12 in quotes are quotes of his 12 reasons with my commentary appearing under). I read over it quickly and decided either I could give him a quick answer or sometimes actually take the time to review it for him. Well, I put it off until I all but forgot to get back to him so I decided to write him a whole blog post about what I think of it. Here is my response and review:

First of all, I HATE being called a millennial. I’d rather be called Generation Y which isn’t a real thing (I would call it from 1982-1996). I’ve talked to some people older than me who feel the same way, so I feel like we unofficially opt-in to a different group together.

Whether or not someone agrees with the 12 reasons, one must applaud Mr. Eaton for actually proposing solutions (though some of them are a little weak). I have read too many “____ are leaving the church” blogs that are more about blame than actually working together. 

 1) “Nobody’s Listening to Us”

I think that this is a sentiment that most generations share: that the other generations don’t care to listen. Now, generally speaking, he’s not wrong. Age groups tend to think the ones above and below them don’t understand. I think we need to stop saying that no one is listening and just get together and have conversations. If nothing happens after that, then maybe someone isn’t listening, but I think everyone is guilty of wanting to be heard but not wanting to listen. The same with hiring a pastor who can connect with millennials, it feels like a way for old school pastors to not have to listen to the younger generation. Almost like what happens with youth or children when we put them in a corner somewhere with a “babysitter” so we don't have to deal with them. As people, we certainly connect easier with certain types of people, but for someone to say I can’t (or won’t) work with ____ is to be ignorant. 

If Peter or Paul had ignored the gentiles you wouldn’t have the privilege of being able to select who you are “called” to. Jesus himself said that he was called to the children of Israel but still healed and attended to outsiders. 

If you want a young adults pastor just so you don’t have to interact with them, then you might want to check your heart, but that’s me trying to take your speck out I suppose. 

2) “We’re Sick of Hearing About Values and Mission Statements”

I second this! Some of them are pretty catchy, but I echo his echo that we already have a Biblical command to love God and love people with a mission to make disciples. Churches do get pretty wrapped up in statements to the point where they forget to make a plan on how to enact it. 

I do want to stress the importance of an organization to have a mission and vision. Here at Empty Church, we talk about the 6 days between Sundays with the church buildings are empty. What's that mean? As an organization, we have to help equip people to have faith 7 days a week rather than 1. I personally believe that ties in perfectly with the greatest commandment and the great commission. Our statement came out of what we started Empty Church for: faith being built through conversation. All our online content it meant to help people have a starting point for such conversations. 

3) “Helping the Poor Isn’t a Priority"

I'm not sure when the church started to forget this. It might have been when Republican became synonymous with Christian. It might be that the churches actually helping the poor don’t get PR so we don't know that they are doing it. 

I think he hit the nail on the head with this one. There is a love component that seems to be missing without service to the poor. The EC Crew definitely feels that we must serve outside of our organization to help others. 

I like his solutions of asking the people in the church about needs of people they know as well as being intentional abut setting up times to help out. Careful, though, that the “I served for this month” attitude does not arise, but cultivate an “anywhere anytime” culture that looks more like the good samaritan story. 

4) ”We’re Tired of You Blaming the Culture”

I do think the church does a lot of blaming. The problem is we pick and choose things from the culture deeming them either good or bad and we are too afraid to be rejected based on a Godly culture. We want acceptance and affirmation way too badly ( I am SUPER guilty of this). So we blame the world’s culture for the things we don't like and appropriate the “okay” things. Problem is, everyone has their own idea of what is okay since we aren’t looking to God for our morality.

He said to stop talking about the end times or at least in regards to, “how bad culture is” and I am half and half on this one. If he means we need to stop over reacting saying that the end is near only because the world looks like the world, then I agree. BUT we cannot stop talking about Jesus returning.

5) “The “You Can’t Sit With Us” Affect”

I agree with this. Some churches even have unofficial assigned seating. Here's my take on the whole thing: Humans naturally form groups with people we connect with. One of his solutions is to create authentic communities centered around service. 1) that is easier said than done. 2) communities have sub-groups which either count as a clique or eventually become one. Once a group starts to grow new smaller groups tend to emerge as well. 

At college I watched groups form, grow, explode, and merge. I saw how groups can look more like a molecule where some groups share common members but are not one large group but two groups linked. How is that a molecule? The molecule is the school community. All of the interconnected but distinct sub-groups of the school are the atoms. 

Am I defending “cliques?” No. that word carries a negative connotation of exclusivity which the author indicates by his likening church to Mean Girls. I completely agree. Churches often are a molecule with no available connections left and we turn people away. We must be intentional about not becoming so closed off that someone seeking to be a part of the faith community is not allowed. Sometimes they are turned away only because they are not wearing pink on Wednesday. Sometimes people visit a church gathering and realize that, although everyone is close and loving, they would never be included. (Side note: as I write this I see pictures on social media of some party where it looks like everyone was included except me. It feels like I am no longer their friend. People naturally cut off old connections to make room for new ones. But a loss of friendship is still a loss and it hurts.)

6) “Distrust and Misallocation of Resources” 

I hear the heart of this one. I have seen money wars in churches and how it can destroy. I do believe churches need to be more thoughtful on how they spend money, especially in the coming years (as I believe there will be less exemptions from the government). But I don't know if people need to know where every cent goes. That sentiment sounds like a control and trust issue to me. Why are churches the only organization that we want to see every cent? People donate to causes all the time that have HUGE overhead, but in the church world, we’ll pull our tithe if we thought money should have been spent on children rather than the homeless. 

Sure churches to use money for “better things.” But that is a slippery slope. Why? There is always something else we could be spending money on. Always. Oh, your church doesn’t have a huge mortgage? How much does it cost in upkeep? Couldn’t that money be spent better elsewhere? What about the people on payroll? Shouldn’t they donate their time and talent? What keeps the church from taking every cent they receive and giving it away? Isn’t that the ultimate end in this line of thinking? 

People expect the church to put money wherever they think the money should go and then under the guise of “transparency” complain when they money is spent elsewhere. Look it is true that churches buy some extravagant things that make us question if they money is being spent in the best ways, but money always makes people itchy. Churches split over which color carpet to buy, I’m not sure if the solution is a line item list where people can see when gram crackers were bought for a snack for kids (remember that money could have been used for the homeless). Before we say that our use of funds is the most correct we must have some empathy to see why someone else would want the money used for their cause - if we truly believe in our cause then money we personally should give to it rather than expecting the church to do it for us.

7) “We Want to Be Mentored, Not Preached At”

Empty Church certainly values mentoring and discipleship. Josh wrote a bunch of blogs about mentoring. Although I personally don’t have an “official” mentor, I definitely see Josh as a mentor as well as my friend. 

Empty Church strives to have a dialogue and not merely a monologue, which is why we have a time of discussion after the sermon every Sunday. We are trying to have something more than being preached at but a full exchange of ideas. I see the dialogue as a time for mentorship/ discipleship within the group but is not the traditional sense of a mentor.

8) “We Want to Feel Valued”

Everyone wants to feel valued. That’s a fact. I understand what the author is getting at as he describes churches that merely want millennials to be warm bodies to serve rather than interacting members of the group. 

I’ve been asked why we started a church rather than joining an already existing one and I think some of the answer comes from the fact that I don't think anyone would have let us try what we are doing.

The trust and exchange of ideas and methodologies between the generations is pretty piss-poor. Older people don’t want to try what the younger people think of and the younger people don’t think there is anything valuable from the older methods. Both thought processes are wrong. There needs to be a meeting of ideas. But both groups have to value each other first. 

9) “We Want You to Talk to Us About Controversial Issues (Because No One Is)”

This one is a good one. The church is famous for ignoring taboo things and then people learn about it from other sources. Example: children encounter porn and sexualized everything everywhere, way after children are over exposed or even addicted then we say “this is all bad” and it's too late. The author says that he does not expect a sex series, but I question why not? The vast majority of families see movies with sexual innuendos if not implied sex in them but the pastor cannot preach on biblical sex? Some would argue that that's for the parents to do when the time comes, but let's be realistic, most never cover it. Maybe I just don't know since I don't have kids, but even the earliest you could ever talk to them about it, they have already been exposed to it. Let’s stop the silence.

The same goes for now. There isn’t a dialogue going on about anything. Just unwritten rules about all kinds of things. Many people don't believe that science and religion and ever been compatible and then we wonder why one of the most scientifically informed generations no longer goes to church. 

10) “The Public Perception”

This one is a no-brainer. People do not trust churches anymore. People see churches more as greedy entities rather than the generous, loving, and serving groups that they should be. Public perception is that Christians are hypocrites. That hurts me. They can call us fools. That's fine with me. But we should be fools to the point that we follow the foolishness. Not fools who don't even believe their own foolishness. 

11) “Stop Talking About Us (Unless You’re Actually Going to Do Something)”

"If you want the respect of our generation, under-promise and over-deliver."  -- Sam Eaton

I read articles all the time about how crappy millennials are. I read articles all the time about how millennials are leaving the church. I read many articles that voice complaints about millennials. I love that they author issues a challenge for people to actually do something rather than just talking. 

12) You’re Failing to Adapt

I like his appeal to try new things and to take risks. It makes me think of the Magic School bus quote about taking risks, make mistakes, and get messy. 

Conclusion:

I see a lot of blame from both sides. Even this article seems to blame the older generation for not acknowledging millennials. There is many “we’s” and “you’s” - showing a divide. 

I feel as if the article as a whole is the same old story of two generations not understanding each other. It shows how we need more communication and less blame. The only problem is that people do not want to listen but want to be right. Until we have a dialogue, each generation will continue to not to understand each other.

About the Author | Sean Kready Twitter – Facebook – Instagram – Snapchat An imperfect Christian, who sins on the daily, but tries to share his journey so that we all might know God better. This is our offering. An act of worship. Please remember our Rules For Discussion when commenting.

From Pew to Pulpit Critiquing the church-going experience. Why? Because we love the Church and we are trying to figure it our for ourselves.

→ For more Pew to Pulpit blogs, click here.