an english professor wrote the words, “woman without her man is nothing” on the blackboard and directed the students to punctuate it correctly.
the men wrote: “woman, without her man, is nothing.”
the women wrote: “woman! without her, man is nothing.”
i was talking to a friend of mine the other day about interracial adoption. she comes from a very”unusual” Christian home background: she has a brother who is korean, and two sisters–one black, one white. (my friend is black, although not biologically related to her black sister.) to my surprise, my friend described interracial adoption as something that is either highly smiled or highly frowned upon. this reaction surprised me: my question is, “why in the world would it be bad?”
i know a few families that have adopted, and all of the adoptions have been international in nature: chinese primarily, but also some from Africa, one from Korea. i think it is great.
but then i started thinking about the arguments the other side might propose: that we have a lot of kids that need adopting here in the states . . . why in the world would we go to other parts of the world to bring them here, ignoring the american kids that need to get out of “the system.” okay, a seemingly valid question–but then i realized a flaw in my thinking. for whatever reason, i was connecting interracial adoption with international adoption. and since that isn’t always the case, the argument doesn’t really apply. the american adoption system can be and is, for some families, an interracial adoption system. (my friend was a intranational interracial adoption; her korean brother was an international interracial adoption.)
i really wasn’t prepared for the arguments against interracial adoption–but they shouldn’t have surprised me. my friend’s mom, a lecturer advocating interracial adoption, received these types of excuses against it: “it is best for a child to grow up in a happy, safe, same-colored home,” “a child needs to know his identity,” and ” the parents won’t understand him.”
some problems here: does happiness in a family come from being the same color? (umm, no. how many unhappy same-colored homes can you think of?) do children really need to identify with a color or culture to have a meaningful existence? (umm, no. welcome to the melting pot. and just because a person appears to be a certain color, doesn’t mean that it is “unadulterated.” most southern white families, traced back far enough, would be surprised to find out they are more interracial that what they thought . . . ) is it a criteria for people to be of the same color to understand basic human ideas/feelings? (umm, no. as the saying goes, we all bleed red. my ability to understand another human being doesn’t derive from an identical melanin match.)
what’s interesting is that a lot of people would advocate interracial adopting– in part. if a white couple wanted to adopt a black child, that’s okay. but a black couple adopting a white child? that’s entirely a different story . . . why? i’ll get there in a minute.
interracial adoption. interesting conversation in and of itself, but the conversation evolved to more “race-based” issues: interracial dating, racism, and ultimately, religion.
i have grown up in the south all of my life. after talking to some people who lived during the civil right’s movement, i realize that the racism issue has drastically improved– my friend and i now drink out of the same water fountain. however, that doesn’t mean that racism ceases to exist.
we still see it in the mindset, especially in the generations before us. the news talks about a crime wave in an area, or the rise in pregnancy in teens in a certain school district, and who’s to blame? “the blacks.” (let’s ignore the statistics that say that uneducated, single-parent, caucasian homes are the predominant problem propagating the welfare woes in our area . . . ) if the statement is unfounded on facts, where does it come from? the over-arching answer didn’t die at the abolishment of slavery or when the civil rights movement came to a close: racism. although not as “radical” as before, it still stays as the root of the ideological problem.
however, it is the grip it still holds in religion (especially in the south) that is the most inexcusable. As Joy McCarnan states in her article “Diff’rent Strokes in the Family of God,” with few exceptions “churches today are segregated, and, contrary to what we biblical separatists would wish to believe, the lines of division are not always doctrinal, but racial and cultural. Corporate fellowship with ‘other’ races and cultures is an exception rather than the rule. When we do accumulate a few minorities in our congregations or institutions, they’re treated almost as celebrities—poster children—walking proof that ‘no, we’re not [racist]!’ Aren’t we?”
she says concisely thoughts and observations i have had since high school. why are there “black” churches and “white” churches? the separation isn’t a doctrinal issue. now, don’t get me wrong. i understand that there are churches out there that we all would agree with “mainly.” they believe in all the “fundamentals” of the faith. the Gospel is preached. but we don’t go there–why? because of “undoctrinal” reasons that make us more comfortable: issues such as music, hats vs. no hats, etc. and it just so happens we are free to make those choices in the buckle of the Bible belt–where there are more independent, fundamental, baptist churches than starbucks and mcdonald’s combined (a–slight–exaggeration).
however, not every region has that luxury. even a half-hour away, i have talked to black families that have chosen churches based on culture/color, even though they have to “unpreach” some things to their children once they get home. why? because the doctrinally-sound, white churches in the area didn’t make them feel at home. they didn’t seem to want to have them there or get them involved.
i was told that it was more than the fact that we don’t wear robes in the choir, clap, and sing “go down, moses.” it is because there seems to be an air of insecurity– a “what do we do with them?” attitude. newsflash: they don’t expect us to speak ebonics on their arrival. do “they” expect “us” to completely change the way that we normally worship to accommodate them? no. just as we wouldn’t expect them to change if we were to visit a service of theirs. do they expect “normal” treatment? yes. and that really isn’t too much to ask . . .
i’m not naive. if there were two churches that were doctrinally sound in my area and i was more culturally comfortable in one over the other, i would probably choose it. however, for our attitudes to make someone so uncomfortable–to be a big enough stumbling block– that any visitor would even consider going to “less-doctrinal” church because of us and any cultural/color mindset we possess is wrong. and it needs to change.
racism, even in it’s less-offensive forms than the 60s, has no place in an equal society. and it should definitely have no place in our churches–because it has absolutely no place in the Church.
“Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons . . .” (Acts 10:34). if He sees no difference, than neither should we.
just a thought.
well, the debate season has officially started. yip. eee. (half sarcasm, half serious)
brief description of events (with subtitles in parenthesis)
thursday: wreck (it wasn’t my fault this time! 
)
friday: tourney started with rounds 1 – 3 (evidence, anybody?)
saturday: tourney ended with rounds 4 – 6 and semis/finals (tension with topicality)
saturday night: drive to lexington (molly is blonde/mermaid medley/mistaken identity)
sunday: return trip (wet willie)
______________________________________________________________
thursday: wreck (it wasn’t my fault this time! )
on thursday, we left campus around 12:30 or so. it was nice not having to take two vans, although i did miss the “make me a blessing” rounds via walkie talkie. . . but that really only worked between ruth and me. the trip up was pretty uneventful. everyone was actually really studious on preparing/fixing cases (not that debate talk didn’t go on last year, but there was definitely other conversations going on, too). we got a little turned around near one of the exits, but we soon realized the error of our ways, backtracked a little, and were back on the right track. total time lost: less than 20 minutes. not too bad. so, there we were, heading down the street to find the hotel . . .
“where is this thing?” the driver asks.
“actually, i think we are coming at it from the opposite direction . . . ” i reply. “i think it should be on the left someplace.”
we procede to slightly go through a light.
“oh, wait. there it is!” i point to the left.
now, if this would have happened with the person i traveled with the most last year (not mentioning names . . . ), she would have continued driving and proceeded to make a U-turn to the annoyance of me and 347 other drivers on the road. however, this was not the case . . .
“is anyone behind me?” she asks, already putting the van in reverse and beginning to move . . .
“CRUNCH” was the sickening response.
luckily for us, a sheriff was across the road, and he watched the whole thing (half sarcasm, half serious). we pulled in a parking lot directly across the street from the hotel <<misc. thought at this point: “we were so close!”>> and proceeded to exchange insurance and all that loveliness. (apparently background checks revert back to your parents all the way back to noah . . .) finally, we are on our way again . . . 2 seconds and an intersection later, we park at our final destination.
this is where one debater pipes in: “hey! we were almost there!”
yes, thank you, captain obvious . . .
______________________________________________________________
friday: tourney started with rounds 1 – 3 (evidence, anybody?)
on fridays, we typically get to sleep in a little bit before heading off to rounds, and this was no different (it’s pretty sad when you sleep more on debate trips than during your regular schedule). everything started at 4, which meant that the last round started–there were some delays–at around 8. i was looking forward to the round because the other rounds i had judged were novice and, frankly, they were really disappointing. (in fact, my flows reflect my boredom– contentions became squiggles at some point in the 2AC . . . zzz . . . the winner was the one who could keep me awake the longest. 
j/k.) okay, the resolution is that the united state foreign policy inappropriately emphasizes military action over diplomacy–obviously a resolution that begs for plenty of discussion about iraq, iran, and north korea (aka “the axis of evil”). however, the aff gets up with this case talking about all the military action going on in russia–news to me–and pulls most of their arguments from one source, throwing in an occasional card from a random newspaper here and there to liven things up. the case was complete in and of itself, but rather easy to refute. so, i’m expecting neg to get up there and give them a run for their money–to argue significance or relevance or something. now, each side in these things get a total of 26 minutes to talk about their position. 26. twenty-six. that is almost half an hour. and the neg gets up, speaks for all their time, and doesn’t give a blessed piece of evidence. not anything. not one card. no counter value. no alternate case. nada. nothing. didn’t even quote their mom . . . i felt like relabeling their rebuttals as random ramblings . . . 
novice, you could expect that . . . but varsity??? give me a break.
______________________________________________________________
saturday: tourney ended with rounds 4 – 6 and semis/finals (tension with topicality)
so, one of our varsity teams made it to finals. (yay for them!) so, being the supportive school that we are, we all pile in, stare intimidatingly at the other team who also piled in, and began to complain about the wooden chairs that we would be sitting in for an hour and a half. (now, this is the time when i would normally sit in the back and play bowling on my cell phone, but alas, that is a thing of the past. one must move on and act mature, i suppose . . . what’s up with that? ) this round proved to be more interesting than most, however. it started after matt, the 1NC, finished his speech. the girl gets up to CX him, and proceeds to ask for every piece of evidence he used in the round. now, if you know matt and the way he debates, you know that you are basically asking for 14 trees of index cards to fly your direction. the boy proceeds to pull evidence from everywhere . . . the podium in front of him, the table behind him, his flowpad . . .
“here’s some. oh, and here’s some more. let’s not forget this! <<he swivels and grabs some more>> oh! here’s another piece. and another. and another.”
he was like a clown pulling out those handkerchiefs from the sleeves . . . it just kept coming and coming. i expected him to reach over, put his hand on the side of the girl’s head, say “voila!” and pull an evidence card from her earlobe. everyone in the room started laughing. i looked at the other debate coach, both of our expressions the same: “who is this? and what happened to matt baker?” meanwhile, during matt’s 1NC, he offered a very compelling argument talking about the irrelevance of this team’s case (btw, this was the russian case i had judged before), and the girl in CX asks him about that.
“so, are you giving us a topicality argument?”
matt thinks for a second, smirks, and said, “yeah. in a nice way, i am.”
“you are calling us on topicality?”
“umm . . . yep.”
“uh, okay . . .”
anyhoo, CX gets over and the speeches continue. matt’s partner gets up to speak in the 2NC and completely forgets to continue matt’s topicality argument. so, the other team gets up and asks the judges to go ahead and vote topicality (this is very rarely ever done); normally the negative is the one who asks for the judges to vote for them early. here, the aff is asking the judges to actually go ahead and vote against them early if they are going to. one judge out of five does, and the round continues.
we ended up winning finals, 4-1.
______________________________________________________________
saturday night: drive to lexington (molly is blonde/mermaid medley/mistaken identity)
after the tournament, we all pile in the van and head to lexington, ky to spend the night before driving the rest of the way to greenville. by now, everyone in the van has either judged or debated up to eight rounds of debate. just so you know, brain cells, by that point, completely revolt, and the bottom of the van becomes layered in small puddles of brain-stun drool. that leads me to . . .
molly . . . oh, molly, molly, molly. (btw, repeating names three time in a row is equivalent to saying “bless her heart.”)
i’m in the passenger seat, talking with jeanine (who’s driving). molly has been listening to us off and on, interrupting our conversation periodically with “i’m confused. you confuse me” or with some random twisting of the last few words that she happened to catch.
please remember– all of us are very tired, so anything that is halfway funny is automatically bumped up to hysterical.
here, jeanine is saying something about debaters getting evidence off of happy meal boxes . . . molly turns around and says, “you can get evidence from happy mail boxes???”
we lose it. we completely lose it. and as jeanine and i are laughing so hard we are crying and jeanine has to slow down so we don’t wreck (again), amanda and ren in the back proceed to sing an interesting medley of the little mermaid song and bye bye miss american pie (i’m still not seeing the logical connection between the two). molly, hearing us laugh, realizes that she has said something funny, but not quite sure what, so she keeps asking over and over:
“what? what did i do? what’s the happy mail box? why are they singing? i’m so confused.”
wanting her to shut up so i can start breathing again, i throw my hand back in the seat to give her a good smack, and end up patting tom on the leg. ummm . . . not quite what i wanted . . .
“is there a reason why you are petting me?,” the deep base voice questions me, obviously amused.
this makes the laughter erupt again, molly still asking random blonde questions as bye bye echoes in the background.
______________________________________________________________
and last, but not least . . .
sunday: return trip (wet willie)
we were about 45 minutes from “home,” and we had settled into a quiet rest. i had slumped down in my seat, my head against the window. i think one of the guys in the seat behind me was snoring a little. yawns were heard periodically.
all of a sudden, amanda let out a shriek that caused jeanine to slam the breaks and for every head to turn around.
“that was DIS-GUST-IIIING!”
mike, sitting behind her, turning fushia, started to cover his face. ren just started laughing like nobody’s business.
“gross! ACK!!! EEE!!! i can’t believe you did that!!!” amanda is shoving her finger in her ear like she is going on a scavenger hunt for her brain.
“what happened?” molly asks.
“HE GAVE ME A WET WILLIE!”
amanda turns around threateningly, raising her fist in a not-so-female version of a punch heading his direction.
“she made me do it! she made me do it!” he screams, pointing at ren, who is now ducking for cover.
“ACK!” she repeats, lowering her fist.
“she told me to!” he continues, pointing in ren’s direction. (she’s now under a seat. )
i’m thinking to myself at this point that his excuse sounds awfully familiar . . . Genesis 3:12, anybody?
it’s been a while since i’ve posted some quotes. so, here are a few i’ve found over the past couple of weeks . . .
_____________________________________________________________
“every evening i turn my worries over to God. He’s going to be up all night anyway.”
– mary c. crowley
“we’re not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be.”
– c.s. lewis
“when you say a situation or a person is hopeless, you are slamming the door in the face of God.”
– charles l. allen
“he who waits on God never waits too long.”
– chuck wagner
“when God loves a creature He wants the creature to know the highest happiness and the deepest misery He wants him to know all that being alive can bring. that is his best gift. there is no happness save in understanding the whole.”
– thornton wilder
“sure God created man before woman, but then again, you always make a rough draft before creating the final masterpiece.”
– anon
TIME magazine compiles photoessays occasionally. the newest one is “finding beauty in the very small,” which is a collection of photos that reveal worlds unseeable/ unknowable to the naked eye. i think it is really interesting how some of the pics look so similar to some of the photos from outer-outer space; that the smallest of the small is so much like the biggest of the big and how they both can’t help but scream divine design . . .
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/2006/microscopy_small_world/
