Wrestling with my place in the body

Before I became an adult born again Christian in 2006, I was an agnostic, politically liberal woman with a strong feminist ideology. My favorite singers in college were Ani DiFranco and the Indigo Girls, whose messages of female and queer empowerment resonated with me (and still do). Enter Jesus into my adult life - I was moved by the message of the gospel, which I had never understood before despite lots of church experience in my childhood. I wanted to be a "Jesus freak," as my ex-boyfriend labeled me when we broke up shortly after my conversion. But as much as the gospel moved me to make a huge spiritual commitment, I began to wrestle with The Church, trying to figure out my identity in it.

photo by János Csongor Kerekes

For example, a few years back, I was reading some Facebook posts by an acquaintance about leaders in Church history who lived out an inspiring vocation as a result of their faith (e.g., William Wilberforce was among those profiled). I was struck that they were all men. I commented that he should consider entries on women in Church history, and he invited me to write such a profile myself. I had always wanted to read more about the American women's rights movement, so I told him I intended to research Susan B. Anthony for a profile, who is a well-known American suffragist and was a Quaker. Of course (being me), I could not just do a Wikipedia-based profile of her. I set about reading her official biographies, written by a fellow suffragist and journalist who Anthony charged with writing her life story. Her biographer had access to Anthony's journals, speeches and personal friendship, so it was an amazing multi-volume biography that is over 1500 pages.

As I dug in to Anthony's biography, it began to dawn on me that I could not profile her for my acquaintance's purposes. Though Anthony was raised and remained a Quaker, I could not write a profile arguing that her vocation as a suffragist and abolitionist was connected in any way to her faith. I could cite several passages in her biography to explain my reasons, but one short anecdote illustrates well the relationship between Anthony and the Church. Anthony and her close friend and fellow leader in the movement for women's rights, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, attended a sermon by a well-known preacher of the time on "Women and Skepticism" in which the preacher argued if women left their natural sphere, they would become skeptical and even immoral. He believed this was a black and white issue biblically, and cited the suffrage movement as evidence of his claims that when women leave their proper sphere, they become skeptical and immoral. Anthony and Stanton confronted the preacher afterwards, and Anthony informed him that his mother should give him a good spanking for the sermon. Stanton reportedly followed Anthony's rebuke with, "'O, no, allow me to congratulate you. I have been trying for years to make women understand that the worst enemy they have is in the pulpit, and you have illustrated the truth of it.'" (The Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony (Vol. II), p. 596)

Male American church leaders were very often the enemy of Anthony's and Stanton's efforts for equality in property and voting rights, not their allies. In fact, I found that Anthony's biography detailed many examples of her doubts and disappointments in her faith, and in reading the many accounts of the roadblocks men in the American church leadership put in her way, I wasn't surprised. How could she not have had significant doubts in an institution that was frequently her enemy as she fought for justice for women? I left the research project full of admiration for Anthony, who died before American women won the right to vote, and disgust for the role (or lack thereof) that the church played in the women's movement.

When I was a newly minted Jesus follower, I didn't know where to situate myself and attended lots of churches to figure out where to go on this journey. I ultimately began attending a non-denominational church, where a spiritual mentor was attending. I was learning a lot about the faith and loving meeting people in the community. However, early on in my time in the church, the issue of women in leadership came up in an all-female small group I was participating in. Ironically, the leader of the group argued (citing scripture) that women couldn't be leaders in the church, and I realized in my time attending the church, I had never once seen a woman on the pulpit. This was so jarring to my identity and beliefs that I called the church and asked to speak to a pastor about the church's position on the issue. The church's position was that women could be pastors and leaders, but not the lead pastor. I chewed on this and wrestled with it. As I got more involved, I attended a church board meeting and was disappointed when I saw all the elders and deacons were men. As I continued to attend, I never once saw a woman give a sermon. Yet, I stayed because I loved the community, despite the cognitive dissonance I felt within it as a woman and a feminist.

A crisis point for my cognitive dissonance in the community was a sermon in a series entitled "Black and White" in which a pastor preached that "homosexuality" is not biblical, and that this was a black and white issue as far as the bible was concerned. Without getting in to the theology here (as there has been much written on this by scholars), as far as I was concerned, biblically this was just as "black and white" as whether women could lead (or have their heads uncovered or even speak) in church. I thought of all the LGBTQ friends and family in my life, and imagined what it would be like for them to be sitting in the congregation and hearing that this issue is black and white. I knew they would be offended and hurt. Much like I was offended and hurt to see women marginalized in a community I loved. I didn't know how to be me in this community.

A few months later when Jeff and I got married and began our life together in Ann Arbor, we sought a spiritual home where women were affirmed in leadership. We found a new church home, and we appreciated that early in our time attending, there was a sermon series on the book UnChristian in which leaders in the church invited conversation about the issue of the LGBTQ community in the church. The church leaders acknowledged differences of opinion, presented multiple perspectives, and invited members to discuss with each other in small groups. However, a few years later, the national denomination of our local church affirmed the belief that gay marriage is immoral, and our local church preached that the leadership agreed. I prayed for months about whether I could stay in a community full of people I love that would exclude from leadership and marriage friends and family who I also love. As I prayed about this, many times a scripture kept coming to me. When Jesus was asked the greatest commandment, he said the most important is, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Mark 30-31). I didn't feel I was loving my LGBTQ neighbors, friends and family members as I myself would want to be loved if I stayed in a community that pronounced they were immoral and could not lead in the community, even if God gave them the gifts and passion to do so.

I had several conversations with close, straight friends in the church as I wrestled with these issues. Oftentimes, I heard people say that it was not an essential issue. In other words, rather than a basic theological position that is required for Christian orthodoxy (like the crucifixion of Christ), it is a non-essential belief. I concede that point. There are lots of non-essential beliefs I often disagree with people in the church about, like how to reconcile the God of the old and new testaments, predestination, the role of God in suffering, etc. There is no such thing as a spiritual community where I am going to agree with every interpretation and issue (I can't even find that community in my own marriage!). Yet, while they might not be "essential," the issues of women and LGBTQ people in leadership are about who belongs in the church - who can embody and represent Christ in and outside of the church body. When communities say that entire identity groups are excluded from being able to use their spiritual gifts within the community, that is striking to the very essence of who can bring the kingdom here on earth. This feels quite different than other non-essential doctrinal disagreements, like how we reconcile scripture about predestination with passages about free will.

And then there is the treatment within the church towards these identity groups based on such so-called non-essential beliefs. Denominations and churches splinter, excommunicate members who come out, deny women the ability to use certain spiritual gifts, fire pastors who identify as LGBTQ or sanction LGBTQ marriages, remove LGBTQ Christians from positions of leadership if they reveal their identity, and/or turn a blind eye and hope that members will live closeted so these issues don't have to be confronted. Jesus said, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35) Outsiders see how the church treats its LGBTQ members and typically conclude the exact opposite about how disciples of Jesus treat one another.

My feelings on this issue have only strengthened since becoming a mother. I see that those who typically speak out on behalf of the LGBTQ community either self-identify as LGBTQ or they have a child who does. If my own children do not identify as cisgender or straight, I will love and support them unconditionally. Jesus didn't put conditions on who he died for on the cross. Unearned, unconditional love and blessing is what grace is all about. To put conditions on who we embrace in the church is the ultimate un-Christlikeness. I like how Greg Boyd put this in Repenting of Religion: "We have seen that the church is called to be the corporate body of Christ that unconditionally loves and embraces all people, regardless of their sin, and invites them into its own celebration of the cessation of the ban [on judging others]. The only exception to this otherwise unconditional embrace is the sin Jesus confronted in the religious leadership of his day. (...) Religious sin [judging others] is unique in that it is the only sin that can keep a community from fulfilling the commission to unconditionally love and embrace everyone.” (p. 204)

I don't want to be the kind of person that only speaks out against injustice or abuse when it affects me or my own kids. In fact, if I take seriously Jesus's call to love my neighbor as myself, I would strive to see and love every person as I would myself or my own children. It grieves me that so many straight, cisgender believers just dismiss this as a non-essential issue and leave the battle to those who themselves identify as LGBTQ or their parents.

It's been about a decade since I began to wrestle with figuring out my identity in the church. I know I'm not there yet, and I've failed in how I myself have done the wrestling. I haven't spoken with church leaders I disagree with, I haven't put myself enough in conversation with LGBTQ Christians, and I haven't tried to change the church from within through loving dialogue with those with whom I disagree. I've stayed silent many times when I felt called to speak out. I would ask forgiveness for these failures from both my LGBTQ loved ones and from those I have silently disagreed with in the church. Jesus's prayer for the body of believers in John 17 was that we may be one, and even brought to complete unity. My hope at this point in my faith journey as I see the church ripped apart over the issue of LGBTQ rights is that I can do a better job of being a part of the effort for unity while still being true to my belief that women and LGBTQ people are unconditionally loved, called and qualified to lead in the body of Christ.

The Hot Zone

We unexpectedly had our childcare arrangements change at the start of this year. We transitioned both girls to 4 days in daycare at the center where Lydia had been attending pre-school part-time. We were anxious about the change for lots of reasons: How would Anna adjust to being in group care? How would the girls (who love to play together) react to being separated in care settings? Would Anna bond with her new primary care giver? How would the girls react emotionally to not seeing their former care giver (who they were very much attached to)? Would Lydia, an introvert, be able to establish closer bonds with the kids in her pre-school class, where she insists she has no friends and likes no one? I lost sleep due to the persistent anxiety and worries. However, it never occurred to me to worry about the thing that would end up breaking all of our spirits most - the disease hot zone of daycare. I had assumed that because Lydia had been in pre-school part time, we had already begun our exposure to the germ factory of daycare. I. Was. Wrong.

The first month that the girls were in daycare four days a week (March), they were actually only in attendance on average every other day. We were paying through the nose for daycare we weren't able to use while at the same time losing productivity at work and depleting all of our sick days. We were struck by one illness after another (respiratory, gastrointestinal, you name it) and to make things worse, we had two children each getting the illnesses that were brought home, which doubled the duration of our collective misery. After their bouts with norovirus, Anna learned what "puke" means and Lydia began obsessing about not kissing people in order to avoid contracting illnesses. Jeff has to insist now that he wants to kiss Lydia despite the risk of catching her germs. This complicated a lot of the emotional adjustment issues we had worried about, especially for Lydia, who learned that if she complained of an ailment, she could stay home from "school." For a month afterwards, she periodically proclaimed she had a stomach bug in the hopes of staying home for the day. April we had some reprieve, but now in the month of May we have had a wave of successive viruses. First Anna was sick with an extreme fever for a week, followed by Lydia catching a bug with high fever. We assumed it was the same bug, until Anna spiked a fever again starting yesterday. I haven't slept well in three weeks now due to the night parenting that comes with fever discomfort awakening kids throughout the night, and as anyone who has experienced prolonged sleep deprivation can understand, I am on the verge of a breakdown. We are all so emotionally exhausted from it that I think at least once daily that I should just quit my job so that we can have some semblance of health and happiness in our lives. During this past week, I saw a post on a friend's Facebook page complaining of the constant illnesses her infant in daycare was contracting, and chimed in with supportive words. I also carefully read the other responses, hoping desperately to see more experienced parents saying it is all worth it to build up immunity (something I often hear from parents of older kids). Some asserted that to be the case and I wanted to believe them, but it got me wondering. Is it at all worth it? Are the anecdotes of improved immunity supported by data? Or is this toll on our family's health just a huge sunk cost that will never be repaid?

I started to dig (thankful for my U-M library privileges!). Several articles (Haskins et al., 1989; Carabin et al., 1998) that I found focused on the financial costs (individually and socially) of illnesses contracted in group daycare. The policy prescription was to better educate daycare centers about good hygiene practices. Considering Anna sucks her fingers all day long and touches everything with those figures, and that most kids have similar habits, I have little faith that hand washing education is going to help with this problem. Maybe my public health expert friends will persuade me otherwise, but the spread of illness in large group settings at this young age seems largely out of the control of daycare centers. Taking the significant costs of these illnesses as a given, I tried to find articles that spoke to the long-term impact (if any) of child care on a child's health. The first such article I found was a study (Wald et al., 1991) that compared illness frequency in children in home care, group care (2-6 kids) and day care (7 or more kids) over 3 years. What they found was a significant difference between kids in day care compared to home care for the first 2 years, and that those increased rates for kids in day care only stabilized by the 3rd year in care. Considering we are 2 months in to our stay in the hot zone, I just about cried imagining that this hell of constant infections is going to continue for 2 full years. A systemic review (Ochoa Sangrador et al., 2007) of studies of the relationship between daycare attendance and infectious disease depressingly noted, "Child day-care attendance could be responsible for 33%-50% of the episodes of respiratory infection and gastroenteritis among the exposed population. In conclusion, it can be said that the risk for childhood health attributable to the child day-care attendance is discreet but of high-impact." (Insert my groan of despair.)

Sick Bento by Amorette Dye. This cheered me up a bit.

However, I thought it would be useful if I could find similar studies with a longer-term scope, given I often hear parents saying that the daycare hot zone pays off in elementary school years. Along those lines, I found Ball et al.'s (2002) article, "Influence of Attendance at Day Care on the Common Cold From Birth Through 13 Years of Age," and my desperation lifted a bit. These researchers similarly compared in home care, group care and day care kids and the frequency of common colds from 0-13 years of age. They found: "Attendance at large day care was associated with more common colds during the preschool years. However, it was found to protect against the common cold during the early school years, presumably through acquired immunity. This protection waned by 13 years of age." A similar conclusion is drawn from a German cohort study (Zutavern et al., 2007) that studied children from ages 0-6. It found children attending day care were more likely to have a variety of infections (common cold, bronchitis, pneumonia, and diarrhea) within the first 2–3 years of life. From 4 years onward, this relationship between day care attendance and infectious disease rate was not significant anymore and even reversed for many of the infections. The authors conclude, "We interpret our findings that children in day care centres acquire infections at a younger age resulting in a certain level of immunity for some infections. In children who have not attended day care centres within the first years of life acquired immunity gets delayed."

The day care hot zone is real. The desperation and pain of children and parents during this time is real. The financial and career costs to families are real. The immunity payoff also appears to be real. I'm not sure if that is cold comfort or a silver lining right now... the answer probably will depend on how sleep deprived I am at any given moment.

Cognitive Dissonance

Photo by Deborah Leigh

People often talk about how stressful it is to become a new parent, and the emphasis is typically on the physical and emotional stresses that result from giving birth, caring for a newborn (the feeding, diapering, etc.), and being sleep deprived. Those stresses are real and awful, but it seems to me that the most significant mental stress of becoming a new parent for me has been the constant cognitive dissonance I'm experiencing. In psychology, cognitive dissonance refers to the feelings of mental discomfort that result when there is a discrepancy between our beliefs and our behaviors. In becoming a parent, I encounter an almost daily mismatch between who I think I am inside my head/heart and what my behaviors suggest about who I am.

I became a parent in my 30s, and thought I was a relatively self-aware person who knew my strengths and weaknesses. However, it turns out that who I am is a lot more dependent on situational pressures than I had realized, and those self-discoveries are usually mentally and emotionally painful. "Know thyself," said the Ancient Greek philosophers. Well, below are some things I "knew" about myself before having children that turn out to be untrue.

I am a punctual person.
I used to be one of those people that was always on time or early for scheduled commitments or events. I thought my punctuality showed that I respected other people. I'd even say that those who are perpetually late for things clearly think they're more important than other people, since they think their time is more important than other peoples' time. Well, now I'm constantly late for things. It turns out that I am one of those people that thinks my time is more important than other peoples'. To deal with the pain of this realization, I rationalize my lateness by telling myself it's "better late than never," since the alternative is just not showing up at all to events/parties/meetings because it's such a hassle to get anywhere.

I am a good steward of the environment.
In eighth grade (1990, when the "Earth Day" movement went global), I won an essay prize for a state-wide Earth Day writing competition. The essay was way melodramatic... the first line said something about a dead fish floating in polluted waters. Because of my love of nature, I wanted to major in biology when I went to college, and I went to a school with a strong reputation for being institutionally environmentally conscious. Well, it turns out I am no longer a good steward of the environment. There is a landfill full of disposable diapers from my two kids to prove it. We wanted to do cloth diapers, but our condo association didn't allow people to wash things contaminated with pet (or human!) waste in the communal washers. By the time we moved in to a house and baby 2 was on the way, we just didn't have the energy to make the switch (or so I rationalize it...).

I am organized and detail-oriented.
I was often told by teachers and bosses that I was appreciated for my organizational skills and my attention to detail. As an adult, my desk and bedroom were always immaculate, and I had excellent filing systems at home or work. When I studied for my preliminary exams in graduate school, I had a thematically organized binder with detailed notes (all answering the same five questions) on every reading I'd done in my focus areas. Now, I leave my wallet in random places, like Lydia's school (twice). I find myself in the airport changing a poopy diaper only to discover I forgot to replenish diapers OR wipes. If I don't write something down on a "to do" list at work, I forget that I ever promised someone I'd do it. Half of the spoons in our flatware set are missing. HALF. I could go on, and on, and on...

I am a thoughtful friend/sister/aunt/daughter.
I used to send cards on friends' and siblings' birthdays, and remembered to call my amazing nephew and nieces on their birthdays. I used to carefully plan what I wanted to buy loved ones for special occasions, and always made a special arrangements on Mother's Day for my mom. Now, I don't remember anyone's birthday. I actually have to do the math to remember how old I am. I haven't mailed a paper card in... wow, I don't even know. Maybe our last paper Christmas card 3 years ago? So the evidence of any thoughtfulness towards loved ones on my part is desperately lacking.

I am healthy and take good care of myself.
I used to work out 4-5 times a week and sleep 6-7 hours a night. But now, I have quit the gym and I am lucky if I get 4 hours of sleep a night. At least I'm still cooking healthy meals. (I think? My health nut brothers claim that half the stuff I eat is mildly toxic. I don't have time to do the research on their claims.)

I have hobbies and interests, including reading, travel, learning foreign languages, photography, singing, museum-going, etc.
I used to do all those things. Now, I do not. Unless an annual trip to New Jersey counts as travel and taking pictures of my kids count as photography. Recently someone who hadn't seen me for 6 months asked me, "What's new?" I couldn't think of anything new I'd done since I saw her. I rationalized it by telling myself that I also couldn't remember what I ate for breakfast that day (see above section about being detail-oriented).

My spiritual life is important to me.
I used to read scripture, meditate, and pray pretty much daily. I used to have deep theological debates and discussions with friends in my spiritual community and my husband. I used to spend significant amounts of time serving my community. Now, I barely do any of these things. I pray with Lydia about monsters in her dreams at bedtime, host a community group at our house (during which I mostly chase kids all over the house), and tell myself that's all I can manage right now.

I'm never going to (insert parenting choice here)/I'm only going to (insert parenting choice here).
I had lots of ideas about the parenting choices I was going to make. I pretty much was wrong about everything I thought I'd do. Below is just a brief list of examples.

• I was only going to breast feed. That didn't work out.
• I was going to do cloth diapers. See above.
• I was going to make my kids eat what I cooked or let them go to bed hungry. The evening I wrote this, Jeff and I had quiche, Lydia ate PB&J and Anna had mac and cheese.
• I was not ever going to yell at my kids. It's happened. More than once.
• I was going to do a weekly date night with Jeff to maintain the health of our marriage despite having kids. We've gone to a movie once since being married.

To reduce the pain of cognitive dissonance, our brains cope in a few ways. First, one can change her mind about a belief when presented with new information or a behavior that is inconsistent with that belief. But we all know how hard it is to change our beliefs, especially those about ourselves. Second, one can come up with excellent justifications and rationalizations to explain the inconsistency. One truth I have learned about myself as I daily face parental cognitive dissonance is that I am a master at justifying/rationalizing my behavior.

Jeff suggested that instead of continuing to rationalize, I could change my belief system about myself. He took a look at my above list of beliefs about myself and labeled me a perfectionist. He suggested that I could change my beliefs about myself to be more consistent with Pete the Cat's philosophy. Lydia loves her Pete the Cat books, and I'd recommend them to fellow parents! In our favorite Pete story, Pete is in love with his brand new white shoes. So much so that he sings a song about them, "I love my white shoes, I love my white shoes, I love my white shoes." When Pete steps in a variety of crap along his life path and soils his shoes, "Does Pete cry? Goodness no! He just keeps walkin' along and singin' his song. Because it's all good." Pete still has joy about his shoes, even if they don't turn out the way he expected. Instead of a set of beliefs that sum up to "I have to live up to my expectations for myself," I could try "It's all good," on for size for a while. The perfectionist in me suspects I won't be very good at that, though!