ElizabethEsther.com

Tears for "Quivering Daughters"

I tried several times to talk about Hillary McFarland's book without weeping. Could.Not.Do.It. I thought about editing out my tears, make this a nice, pretty little video. But you know what? I didn't. I didn't because what is happening inside "biblical patriarchy" is nothing short of tragic. We should be weeping. I was honored to write the Foreword to Hillary McFarland's new book "Quivering Daughters" and I'm unashamed to weep for these precious daughters, here. Please watch and please consider purchasing her important, courageous book.

Evolving in Monkey Town (a book for anyone struggling with their faith)

Rachel Held Evans was a sweetly ambitious Southern gal who had all the right answers about her evangelical Christian faith before a spiritual crisis led her to rethink the "false fundamentals" she held so tightly. Her book, Evolving in Monkey Town: how a girl who knew all the answers learned to ask the questions, is an intriguing and thought-provoking journey through her questions and doubts.

I began reading Rachel's blog a little over a year ago. We had some similar things in common--primarily, our struggle to hold onto our faith in the midst of voices that told us unless we adhered to x, y or z we were not real Christians.

Rachel has a unique ability to wrangle with the questions that sometimes derail the faith of many struggling Christians. She does a good job of keeping the tone civil and open for discussion, and it is a skill she brings both to her blog and her book. 

I especially enjoyed her chapter called "Survivor's Guilt" where she discusses what she calls "pond-scum theology." She writes: "Pond-scum theology makes even less sense in the context of the Gospels. To believe that people are inherently worthless to God strips the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of all their meaning and power. It makes Jesus look like a fool for dying for us, and it leaves His followers with little incentive to seek out and celebrate the good in one another." (p.117)

There were little paragraphs like that through the whole book that made me want to shout, YES! YES!

And although I don't agree with some of her liberal political persuasions, I appreciated reading about how she came to her conclusions. Her book allowed me to go deeper into understanding who she is and what events led to her crisis of faith. I was also truly impressed with how she's rebuilt (and rebuilding) her faith. She manages to think critically without thinking cynically. I admire that.

My only concern arose near the end of the book when she begins discussing how the Christian faith is adapting to the modern world. She writes: "My generation is perhaps more equipped than any other to defend the uniqueness of Christianity, but we are also the most capable of seeing things from a different perspective." (p.204) 

This troubled me because the truth is, our generation is just as capable of making the same mistakes as earlier generations. In attempting to right the wrongs of the past, we should walk carefully and humbly. All the good intentions and idealistic hopes for change do not guarantee our own infallibility.

However, we are agreed on the most important thing: "Taking on the yoke of Jesus is...about loving God and loving other people." (p. 209) And yes, it really is "that simple and that profound. It's that easy and that hard." 

Rachel's book, Evolving in Monkey Town, is an encouraging read for anyone struggling with their faith. You can read more of Rachel's journey on her blog and also follow her on Twitter.

Thanks, Rachel, for writing such a thought-provoking, enjoyable book! I look forward to many more discussions!

5 books in less than 5 minutes!

I thought a quick, silly little vlog would be a fun way to review five of the books I've read since January. Enjoy!

Emergent, Traditional, New Way/Old Way and a conversation with author of "Deep Church," Jim Belcher)

It usually begins like this: There has to be a better way.

This urge to seek greener pastures, higher callings, a New World seems to be an irrepressible facet of human nature.

The whole of human history is shot through with conquests of this sort. Some are resplendent successes, some are abysmal failures. But the need to improve upon, innovate or reform is an indispensable tool of human progress.

I just wonder to what degree, though, Christians ought to promote this kind of thinking when it comes inventing/finding a better way to do Christianity. My concern is that the desire to innovate often disguises what may, perhaps, be a false underlying assumption; ie. I am my own authority.

Full disclosure: I admit to being frustrated with aspiring pastors who are forever striking out on their own and planting new churches. It's just that Southern California is chock-full of these kinds of churches and since this is where I live, I want to know why.

That question motivated me to buy and read a book written by local pastor, Jim Belcher: "Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional."

To be honest, my lingering impression could be titled, "Deep Disappointment: A 31,000th Way To Re-Invent Christianity."

This is not to disparage the author, Jim Belcher, whom I found to be genial, smart and best of all, a baseball fan. We had a great chat and he made me feel comfortable enough to share my reservations with him.

My disappointment has to do with how Jim's solution to the problems between Traditional and Emergent churches was to, predictably, start a new church.

To his credit, he did align himself with an established denomination. And frankly, I appreciate his blend of Christianity: "a church that sings hymns, recites set prayers, has Communion every week and is intergenerational and gospel centered." (p. 31) I just think churches like that already exist. Especially here in Orange County which is like a mecca for experimental Christianity. 

When I asked Jim why a "third way," he chuckled: "It's not a new way," he said. "It's actually an old way. We stand in the Great Tradition that stretches back to the 4th and 5th century." 

"OK," I said. "But how is that any different than lots of denominations and non-denominations that claim the same thing? I mean, I grew up in a church that claimed it had recaptured the 'New Testament pattern.'"

I will be honest and say that I found Jim's answer unsatisfactory. He talked a lot about "interpreting [Scripture and tradition] within the context" of the modern world and "living within the Biblical story" and his church being a "new way for what's out there."

And maybe that answer suffices for Jim's target audience. Fair enough. I'm not his target audience--I'm just a disappointed reader. With a lot of baggage. Heh.

What I do recognize is that Jim's ministry has borne good fruit, his book is a bestseller (for its genre) and he's making a positive impact on Orange County. I guess I just wonder: is his particular vision sustainable? I mean, what happens after the innovator/establisher-of-a-new-way-that's-not-new retires?

I suppose it's somewhat unfair to try and deconstruct Jim's vision simply by reading his book. Perhaps if I attended and experienced his church, the reality of what he's trying to accomplish would resonate with me. In a book that reads like an intensely researched thesis paper, it's almost impossible to grasp the fullness of what Jim proposes.

Still, I do commend Jim for organizing a worship service that centers on Communion. That's a rare find these days, especially in evangelical circles where Communion has been downgraded to an almost randomly scheduled, optional practice. 

Ultimately, I'm glad I read the book. It offers valuable insight into defining what is/is not the emerging church and where it's going/not-going and how the traditional church can respond/not-respond by becoming a third-way/not-third-way.

Ouch.

Now my brain hurts. Thanks, Jim. 

Oh, well. LET'S GO, DODGERS!

A conversation with Bruce Sheiman, author of "An Atheist Defends Religion"

Bruce Sheiman is a nice atheist. Scratch that. Bruce Sheiman is a nice human being, period. 

When I first heard about Bruce's new book, "An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It," I was intrigued. I'd never met an atheist who didn't decry religion as evil. 

"That's because the loudest atheists are extremists and they control the dialogue," Bruce explained. "Extremists always sell the most books and get the most attention. The truth is that moderate atheists--the ones who are content to 'live and let live'--are the silent majority."

And the extremist atheists hate Bruce's book. The pushback has been vitriolic, to say the least. He's been attacked online and accused of not being a "real atheist."

"They think I'm a traitor," he says. "But a traitor to what, exactly? A non-belief?"

All this anger clouds the water, makes respectful dialogue nigh impossible. But Sheiman wants atheists to take a second look at believers. "The untold story of religion is that a lot of good things are being done by people of faith," Bruce says. "Just look at Haiti."

Hardline atheists don't want to hear that religion is good for humanity. Shoot, it's hard to find Christians who think that.

Which is to say, there are churches whose entire appeal, it seems, is based on the claim of being spiritual but not religious. Sheiman, however, sees this as a good thing.

"Christianity is still largely God-centered, but it's becoming increasingly more human-focused," he observed.

Sheiman regrets the age-old debate between science and religion. He suggests that science and religion are compatible because both are devoted to "the alleviation of human suffering." He thinks fundamentalists--both religious and non-religious--have controlled the conversation for too long.

That's a point on which we both agree. 

When I asked Bruce why he calls himself an "aspiring theist," he said that it's because he would like to believe there's an afterlife and an underlying force of goodness in the universe. But he can't believe it, partially because there is so much randomness.

"I'm open to a religious experience," he says, "but I just haven't had one."

His openness surprises me. I've never met an atheist who wasn't militaristically opposed to anything smacking of the supernatural. Bruce reminds me that this is because the conversation between people of faith and non-believers has often been reduced to unhelpful things like the debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Rev. Al Sharpton.

I agree that those kinds of debates tend to reinforce stereotypes instead of encouraging dialogue.

Peace and moderation don't make for splashy headlines. But they do make for nicer human beings. 

And in a strange sort of way, I find myself agreeing with Bruce more than I disagree with him.

You might, too. Read his book: 'An Atheist Defends Religion.'

This believer recommends it.

A conversation with Frank Schaeffer, author of "Crazy for God"

 Frank Schaeffer has earned a reputation as an outspoken critic of The Religious Right, a group he says is "fueled by an adrenaline of hysteria." 

But when Frank agreed to chat with me about his book "Crazy for God: how I grew up as one of The Elect, helped found The Religious Right, and lived to take it all (or almost all) of it back," I was inspired by his compelling, thoughtful insight into the evangelical mindset and the steps that brought about the politicization of an entire bloc of Christian voters. I was particularly curious about the process that led Frank to abandon the religious convictions of his famous evangelical father, Dr. Francis Schaeffer, and how his journey away from what he calls "jingoistic, cult-of-personality Christianity" has shaped his faith.

An Open-Hearted Childhood

Frank was raised in a loving, fundamentalist missionary home by parents who were sincere in their love for God and other people. Like most fundamentalists, there were strict rules about no cursing, no TV, no card games. But the Schaeffers demonstrated their love and open-hearted approach to faith by welcoming backpackers, hikers, artists, musicians and wanderers of all sorts into their Switzerland home. It was there, in L'Abri Fellowship, that Dr. Francis Schaeffer began his lectures on art, culture, literature and Christian thought. And then, he became a best-selling author.

"Things changed after that," Frank said. "Suddenly we were packing out auditoriums with our video seminars like How Should We Then Live?" Dr. Schaeffer began urging the post Billy Graham generation that true service for Jesus Christ meant political action. It was a Christian's duty to vote according to, what Frank called, "the moral litmus test" in order to prevent America from a socialistic takeover. 

In Bed With Hysterics

The resulting evangelical political fervor caught the attention of politicians. Soon Dr. Schaeffer was being flown around on private jets and invited to private meetings with senators and the Bush family. Politicians wanted Schaeffer's counsel on how to energize what had historically been an apathetic voting bloc: the evangelical, faith-based voter. 

Right around the same time, Hal Lindsey (a visitor to Schaeffer's L'Abri home) published his lightening rod bestseller Late, Great Planet Earth. Dr. Francis Schaeffer didn't adhere to Lindsey's eschatology, but it was too late: The Religious Right had provided a platform for the Apocalypse. And any other fear-based rhetoric that would energize voters. 

"It was like one day you woke up and realized you were in bed with hysterics," Frank chuckled. "We'd gone from my Dad warning that Roe v. Wade would lead to a liberal takeover of the Supreme Court to Jerry Falwell telling me personally that if he saw his dogs doing what gays do, he'd shoot them." 

Frank says his dad refused to join Anita Bryant's crusade to ban gay teachers from public schools. "Anita left in quite a huff," he said. "But my Dad wasn't interested in jumping on her bandwagon. In practice, he was open-hearted and non-judgmental about gays, atheists and other non-believers." It seemed as if The Religious Right was trying to pigeon-hole Dr. Schaeffer's message. No longer was it about serving Jesus Christ in politics. It was about serving Jesus Christ by voting Republican.

The End is Near because Obama is a Socialist

Franks sees parallels between The-End-Is-Near alarmism of the late 70's and 80's to the modern Obama-Is-A-Socialist rallying cry. "They're trading in the same currency of fear," Frank says. "Except it's a secularized version. It's no longer about serving Jesus. It's about preserving capitalism. Glenn Beck is James Dobson warmed over and re-packaged for cable television."

The problem is that this kind of rhetoric has what Frank calls, "the logical, next step." Either you pack up your family and high-tail it to the country where you try to survive the imminent Apocalypse (and by the way, both Frank and I know folks who have done this). Or you pick up a loaded gun and go after the President. This is the scenario that most troubles Frank. "Most of these radical groups are small enough that they won't bring down the United States," he says. "But they can destroy individual lives. All it takes is one wing-nut to put the rest of us in a world of trouble for a very long time."

I have to admit that this is the scenario that scares me the most, too. Radical fundamentalists are a minority population. But I've read enough hyper-patriarchal/fundamentalist blogs to agree with Frank that some of these folks are "rooting for Armageddon."

Patience with God 

When I asked Frank about where he is now with his faith, he described it as a journey. He says he's moved away from the sermon-based, pastor-centric model of Christianity. He's wary of the churches that spring up because of one fantastic, eloquent personality. "It's a cult-of-personality," he comments. "And what happens when he dies? When my Dad died, L'Abri Fellowship declined. There was infighting and disagreements." 

In some ways, it seems a sermon-based, pastor-centric model is not sustainable. "People say 'come hear my pastor preach what the Bible says,'" Frank observes. "But what they really mean is 'come hear what my pastor says it says.'" In those churches, Frank says "salvation is through adhering to the same set of beliefs rather than a human journey toward character change." 

This faith journey was the inspiration for his new book, Patience With God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or atheism). Frank says he is drawn to the ancient traditions of liturgy and sacrament. There is something timeless about these things, an acceptance that we are "human beings on a human journey. And that is OK." 

I couldn't agree more.

Up next on my reading list: Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or atheism).

Thank you, Frank, for speaking with me. It was a great pleasure.

Books I Read in 2009

Before I was a writer I was an avid reader. I still am. Here's a list of the books I read in 2009.

1. Infidel by Aayan Hirsi Ali: the true life account of a woman who fled to Holland from clannish Somali Islam in order to escape an arranged marriage. It resonated deeply with me. You can read my book review of Infidel here.

2. Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortensen: a former climber devotes his life to building schools for children in rural Pakistan & Afghanistan. Mortenson's unflagging compassion and determination are inspirational.

3. United States Catholic Catechism for Adults: all I knew about Catholicism was second-hand, pseudo-knowledge. Going to the source and reading this easy-to-read catechism for myself was a wonderfully enriching, enlightening experience. 

4. Churched by Matthew Paul Turner: Turner's laugh-out-loud experiences while growing up inside a fundamentalist church are told in a hilariously sarcastic voice. I winced, nodded in recognition and shouted "YES!" throughout the entire book. A funny, engaging read.

5. Jesus Land by Julia Scheres: another memoir about life inside strict fundamentalism, including a brutal, Christian boot-camp/reform school for "rebellious" teens. A real tear-jerker with a devastating ending.

6. The Shack by Wm. P. Young: this popular bestseller was just OK. I might need to re-read it because my lingering impression is annoyance, not inspiration. You can read my book review here.

7. The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence: I read this book at least once every three years. Lawrence's practical perspective on communing with God in our everyday lives is something I always appreciate.

8. He Leadeth Me by Fr. Walter J. Ciszek: a remarkable life of faith that is formed in the trenches of imprisonment, persecution, loneliness, work camps and deprivation. This memoir filled me with such hope.

9. John Adams by David McCullough: I read 3/4 of this massive, definitive work on the life of John Adams before I had to return it to the library. Interesting and informative...but very long.

10. Twilight by Stephanie Meyers: the worst book I read this year. You can read my scathing review here (incidentally, one of most popular posts this year).

11. Evangelical is Not Enough by Thomas Howard: the best book I read this year. Howard's gracious reverence for the evangelical faith of his youth is coupled with a growing appreciation for the ancient traditions of orthodox Christianity. Howard uses a C.S. Lewis-esque logic to explain how the worship of God through liturgy and sacrament is the fullness of Christian experience. I loved this book so much I am hoping some of you will purchase it because I'd love to host a book club right here on my blog! 

12. Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer: the son of evangelical demi-god, Dr. Francis Schaeffer, offers a telling insight into growing up as the pastor's kid. Frank Schaeffer, now an outspoken critic of evangelical fundamentalism, shares how he "helped found the religious right and lived to take all (or almost all) of it back."

13. Little Earthquakes by Jennifer Weiner: I read this book on my return flight from Chicago. It was fictional brain-candy--precisely what I needed to distract me from my flying phobia. A solid plot and realistic, engaging characters. New moms will like this one.

14. A Book of Love Poetry edited by Jon Stallworthy: during a particularly depressing month this past year, love poetry buoyed my spirits. I even memorized Shakespeare's sonnet "That time of year thou may'st in me behold..."

15. Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert: a fascinating, science-rich study on the brain and the sometimes random elements that conspire to create the elusive mixture we call happiness. Long on research and short on answers, I enjoyed the book but ultimately felt a little dissatisfied. Still, a good read.

16. Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie: a fundamentalist recounts his journey into the Catholic Church and how he wrestled with some of the particularly difficult aspects of Catholic doctrine that seem to frustrate most born-again/Bible-believing Christians; ie. transubstantiation and Mary. Currie's reasoning is both helpful and encouraging.

17. Home Sweet Rome by Scott & Kimberly Hahn: a former Presbyterian pastor, Scott Hahn writes compellingly about his inspiring and heartbreaking journey into the Catholic Church. It's an intriguing memoir--one part theology, one part love story.

18. The Wordy Shipmates by Sarah Vowell: in her uniquely sardonic writing voice, Sarah Vowell gives us a fresh look at the oft maligned, stereotyped, hilarious and maddening Puritans. It's a fantastic, easy-read and brings 17th century America to life. However, by book's end I had wearied of her ceaselessly cynical editorializing.

So, what did you read this year? Any suggestions for my 2010 reading list?
And anyone interested in doing a book club on "Evangelical Is Not Enough" ?

Why "Twilight" is a misogynistic piece of hard-boiled crapola

I just finished the first Twilight book. I can't believe parents are letting their daughters read this stuff--unless it's to crack jokes at the hilariously chauvinistic dialogue.

You know, real gems like this one from lust-a-licious vampire Edward Cullen: "You are exactly my kind of heroin." (p.268)

Now that right there is one swoon-worthy compliment!

If only it weren't followed shortly after by this proclamation: "As if I needed another reason to kill you." (p.272)

Right, because nothing turns a girl on like a guy who is conflicted...ABOUT KILLING HER.

"I could reach out, meaning to touch your face, and crush your skull by mistake. You don't realize how incredibly breakable you are." (p.310)

O, Edward! Throw me over your shoulder and haul me downstairs to breakfast after a night of passionate, fully-clothed cuddling!

Yes, peeps, it's true. Edward Cullen and Bella Swan practice abstinence. Our chivalrous vampire doesn't want to fornicate with Bella. He just wants to kill her.

Darn those "confusing" murderous impulses!

But let's focus on the positive. A chaste vampire. Ah, yes. This is a vampire you can bring home to meet the folks.

And don't worry. If Edward ends up killing Bella, it will be her fault. That's because she should know to stand perfectly still when he kisses her. Otherwise vampire passions are aroused and, well, murder happens.

"Damn it, Bella!" he broke off, gasping. "You'll be the death of me, I swear you will." (p.363)

Romantic, right? He gets to die figuratively. She gets to die literally. Awesome.

You know, the only thing less funny than Twilight's cheesy one-liners is the fact that millions of young girls might actually believe its false portrayal of love. 

How many young women will now bypass good, decent (non-violent!) guys in favor of the "complex, confused" bad-boy? Parents should point out to their daughters that the romance in Twilight hinges upon nothing less than the entire subjugation of its female protagonist.

Subjugation is not love. Neither is obsession that leads to death. Didn't we learn that from Romeo & Juliet? Darn those pesky double-suicide endings!

Look, I get it. Back in the day, Heathcliff was my literary hero. Then I got married and had five kids. That cured me right quick.

Now I prefer a real man who provides, protects and replaces the busted water heater. He even takes out the diaper pail without being asked! Seriously, how hot is that?

Yeah, that's my kinda hero. And it's the kind of hero I'm going to help my daughters choose, too.

Now, if you'll excuse me. I've got a piece of crap book to throw in the trash.

Book Review: The Shack by Wm. Paul Young

I should start this review by saying that I never intended to read "The Shack." I'm not especially fond of trendy Christian books like "The Purpose Driven Life" or "The Prayer of Jabez." I'm wary of any book that claims to be "life-changing" and especially dislike theological fiction--which is usually poorly written fiction with a heavy-handed message (think Frank Peretti's "Piercing the Darkness" or the "Left Behind" series).

However, so many people had asked me if I'd read this book that I finally caved. Fine, fine. I'll read it.

The basic plot involves a middle-aged father name Mack who loses his daughter to a brutal, serial kidnapper. This negatively affects Mack's relationship with God. One day God sends Mack a note--yes, an actual note--inviting him to spend some time with him at the very shack where his daughter's bloodied dress was discovered.

Mack reluctantly makes the trip to The Shack where he is effusively greeted by a "large, beaming African-American woman." (p.84) In other words, Big Momma. Except she's called "Papa" and she's God the Father.

I have to admit I almost quit reading right there. Young's portrayal of an African-American woman is patronizingly stereotypical. So is his portrayal of Jesus as a Middle Eastern man with a "large nose" (I'm not making this up). The Holy Spirit is a shape-shifting Asian woman. I don't even know what to make of that!

So, OK, if you can get past these offensive personifications of the Trinity, you might enjoy the rest of the book which hinges upon conversations between Mack and God.  In the end, Mack leaves a changed man. He's forgiven his daughter's murderer, asked some tough questions, and forsaken his "religious conditioning" which had hindered him from having a loving relationship with God.

The writing itself is mediocre although the pacing is fairly executed. The characters themselves are not very complex. Mack struck me as a shambling, self-pitying, passive-aggressive man who, we are told repeatedly, is saddled with A Great Sadness (yes, capitalized just like that). Blech.The characters of the Godhead are, as I mentioned, are stereotypical and somewhat patronizing. They are forever patting Mack on the back and telling him that he just doesn't understand. Yet.

There were some redeeming qualities about the book. I enjoyed the author's insight into the nature of love and relationships. As someone who was raised in an abusive, controlling church, it was refreshing to get a different perspective of God. My image of God the Father is often of a harsh judge waiting to execute judgment upon His errant, sinful children. "The Shack" produces an image of God the Father as an unconditionally loving, patient, often humorous parent.

This was helpful and heartwarming.

I especially appreciated the discussion about the nature of love and what love is. As the Holy Spirit (aka Sarayu--Asian woman) says to Mack, "Relationships are never about power, and one way to avoid the will to hold power over another is to choose to limit oneself--to serve." (p. 108)

Further on, Jesus speaks to Mack about why we value people based on their appearance and how we ought to value them for their intrinsic worth. "Being always transcends appearance--that which only seems to be. Once you begin to know the being behind the very pretty or very ugly face, as determined by your bias, the surface appearances fade away until they simply no longer matter." (p.114)

However, I was troubled by the loosey-goosey theology. There was a section where Jesus tells Mack that "most roads lead to nowhere. But I will travel any road to find you." So, yes, Christ can find us anywhere. But it also sounds awfully similar to universalism. This kind of double-speak ran through many of the conversational passages. If I was an new Christian without much knowledge of Scripture, I might be seriously confused. 

So, while there are passages that are insightful and interesting, there is a lot of doctrinal error, too. I can forgive mediocre writing if the story is compelling and the theology is good. Alas, this book falls short.

My recommendation is that you don't go out and buy "The Shack." Chances are your evangelical neighbor has already purchased a copy that you can borrow.

Just be prepared to hear that it's "life-changing." :)

Book Review: Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

 

Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a difficult, heavy book to read. But it's a book that needs to be read; a story that needs to be heard. The fact that Hirsi Ali survived long enough to tell her story is miraculous. She emerged from a clannish version of Somali Islam, fled to Holland to escape an arranged marriage and became a powerful voice for oppressed Islamic women. It's a frightening, gruesome story that touches on the horrors of female circumcision, polygamous marriages, domestic violence and the crushing of the individual.

On a personal level, this book struck a deep chord with me because there were haunting parallels between Islam and certain fundamentalist Christian groups. Hirsi Ali writes:

"A Muslim women must not feel wild, or free, or any of the other emotions and longings I felt when I read those [Western literature & novels] books. A Muslim girl does not make her own decisions or seek control. She is trained to be docile. If you are a Muslim girl, you disappear, until there is almost no you inside you. In Islam, becoming an individual is not a necessary development; many people, especially women, never develop a clear individual will. You submit: that is the literal meaning of the word islam: submission. The goal is to become quiet inside, so that you never raise your eyes, not even inside your mind." (p.94)

On the one hand, it would be easy to dismiss the relevance of Hirsi Ali's story as something that could only happen in third-world countries or welfare states like Holland. This would be a dangerous oversight. There are many groups right here in America that promote the subjugation of women. I know because I came out of one of these groups. These fundamentalist groups are seeking to restore "True Christianity." They put themselves in voluntary isolation from "the world" and build entire sub-cultures based on hyper-literal interpretations of Scripture. Hirsi Ali knows about this from the Islamic perspective:

"They felt Islam should not be something you nodded at a few times a week. They wanted to immerse themselves in it as a minutely detailed way of life, a passion, a constant internal pursuit...The intention was to live according to the ancient ways in every detail of our lives. We weren't just learning a text by heart: we were discussing its meaning and how it applied to us every day...This was True Islam, this harking back to the purity of the Prophet. Everyone was convinced there was an evil worldwide crusade aimed at eradicating Islam.." (p.108)

Hirsi Ali tried to live out this life. She wore modest clothing, covered her hair and took to wearing a tent-like garment whenever she went out in public. Still, she was beaten mercilessly for asking a question or not properly covering her arms. The difference between Islam & Christianity is that "The Quran mandates these punishments. It gives a legitimate basis for abuse, so the perpetrators feel no shame and are not hounded by their conscience or their community...I wanted secular, non-Muslim people to stop kidding themselves that 'Islam is peace and tolerance.'" (p.307).

Christianity, unlike Islam, values the individual. Christians believe God is Love is that He cares for each of His children. This is weak-minded and entirely too convenient according to the Muslim worldview. Hirsi Ali was hunted and still lives under death threats for speaking against the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

Not all Christians agree with each other--but at least in America we don't go around killing each other over disagreements in doctrine. Most Americans appreciate agreeable disagreement. We like to talk things over. Hirsi Ali's story is an eye-opening reminder that in Islamic countries, a woman speaking her mind is a death sentence.

Just one more reason I'm grateful to be an American woman--free to speak my mind and not living under the mandates of a theocracy.

God bless America!