crossegg.com

Kimberly B. George here’s my favorite of the letters I wrote to Rob Bell which might be of interest to you. If you are not Kim you can also read it. Please if you  quote from or reference my writing give me some credit, perhaps even linking to my work here at crossegg.com.

The Breast For Rob

Friday, August 1, 2003

Is the essence of the breast erotic? Does it possess more beauty then an ankle, a shoulder, or long brown hair? Is the erotic mammary gland a human invention? Is it unfairly ascribed a higher value in the human catalogue of forbidden fruits? It certainly is not the tree of the knowledge of God and evil?

At the beach in Spain there is no mystery left. Grandma and grandpa arrive and when both remove their subway-traveling garb they reveal that neither of them have need of fancy undergarments. The young blond with generous breasts sees no need to bare her nipples but her well fitting yet modest Speedo is a thing to behold. Is she less likely to cause a man to sin then the lumpy, heavy set– you’ve got to reconsider not keeping all of your swim suit on– lady who fails to see the need to shave at all… boy those are funny colored slightly misshapen nipples you have, please won’t you next time give me a warning if your going to pull those out while your rinsing the sand off next to me at the fresh water shower at the beach.

Does the mundane everyday nipple destroy the mystery or does it merely prove that just ‘cause your culture thinks an ankle or exposed eyes is too much… or does it simply show that cultural standards are separate from the standards of the creator.

Erotic does not equal bare! Just ask the teenage boys from Michigan who were looking forward to the European beach scene until Grandma left her home, bought a jug of water and walked back home with strange waist-ward-drooping breasts-a-swinging (sung to the tune of O Holy Night (westward leading still proceeding, guided by the holy light.).

Is erotic in the viewed or the viewer? It seems they both take and bring much to the experience. If “it” was mundane would it be wrong. Girls wearing pants, to say nothing of shorts, is against the will of God. Perhaps a pure and holy women, who honors her husband, would be wise to not dare to expose her … well lets just say eyes. Although perhaps those clerics are too extreme?

That shirt shows her shape, that ballet costume is too tight, dancing causes too much bouncing. When she runs I can’t help my mind it just wants to bounce along. She exposed her shoulders I was overwhelmed by all that flesh. When I begin to draw a line around an imaginary “no show zone” I have difficulty choosing where to stop or even start. She is so flat chested, other then the enlarged nipples and negligible fatty tissue, I would not know she’s a woman. Without a top she’s nothing to paint, or lust over, just different shaped and strangely boyish, is it ok for her to wear tighter shirts, or lower cut tops because there will be no cleavage to arouse me.

The mystery and allure: does it exist because they are hidden? Ankles and knees are certainly not too much to show, it has been oft argued that they should be saved till the wedding night. Does riding a horse really potentially ruin the dainty erotic allure of that precious nether region; should not that precious region be unexposed to trauma until the night a man has bought the chance.

Is the flood of lust from within or is it a nipply dart from the foe of beauty? Modesty is a non-negotiable, but is what is immodest related to roundness and inevitable browner skin. They first appeared to me as too large fried eggs. They were not things of erotic wonder, I expected something special and magic, although they were soft, they were not the holy ground I had come to believe I was entering into. Certainly fondling and touching could lead to arousal… but I came to learn on my 4year no kissing (ok; limited kissing—definitely no making out) odyssey that without kissing, and fully clothed with no touching other then hand holding (nothing above the elbow), and hand to face touching without touching the mouth can still be an incredibly intimate and entirely erotic experience.

Should we have covered our faces, was hand holding too much, was hand massaging too much, or was it the minds behind the touch. Is hair bathed in expensive perfume and poured and rubbed on a man’s feet too much? Is erotic an inappropriate mindset or the domain of skin too close to a nipple, and how close is too close. The nipples can belong to the lumpy, the old, the shriveled, the gorgeous, the lopsided, the short, the flat, the black, the white, and the man who should wear a bra? Those nipples with their surrounding flesh does not in any way diminish my desire for my wife’s affection. I still want to be possessed by her. I still want to possess her and taste of her garden. But the garden is more then what I see. It is more then nipples and cleavage, even if she loses them to breast cancer her either clothed or naked does it for me.

Is chastity more clothing, is the nipple the key or does it live in the heart?

If I say cover it up I do not know what is covered enough. I can still see nipples if she gets cold she needs to find a better nipple suppression system—maybe two bras and a sweat shirt is good enough. Or if she just goes without a shirt I will not have lost a mystery, as much as I will have dispelled a myth… which was of our own making?

I’m sure I don’t know, and since my nipples being hairy and male apparently have no erotic value I never get to chose to hide or expose them, but I would like to know if those strange looking fried eggs are really as important as we evangelicals make them out to be.

Craig Sinclair

Kim here’s another of the letters I wrote to Rob Bell which might be of interest to you. Here is another letter for Kimberly B. George (if you are not Kim you can also read it. Please if you quote from or reference my writing give me some credit perhaps even linking to my work here at crossegg.com,)

Letter 2: Rob Bell On Eating Dead Things

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

Your sermon 3 weeks ago (Sunday 10/12/03) contained a moment not to be missed, that you skipped over. As you explained the kingdom principle of one thing needing to die in order for others to have life, it occurred to me that this principle illuminates more then the goodness of your wife’s salsa, and Christ’s death. I was stunned by the impact of a realization made by applying the death bringing life principle to the current political, social, and moral scene in these United States.

As you discussed the salsa and stuff that was picked off a vine, particularly the Roma tomatoes, you pointed out the persistent pattern in this life of one thing dying and through its death another thing gaining life. You aptly extended the concept to the 9/11 firemen who are perhaps the most poignant example in this culture.

Although you chose home made salsa, and food in general as your primarily analogy of something that dies and thereby gives life. You also used the cross on stage and the fact that Jesus was given to die so we could live. The concept of death leading to life is part of the created order; it is a reality that many people often are initially confused about. How could Christ pay a debt for others? Do I even owe a debt that needs to be paid? You suggested that directing people to salsa, dinner or any of the other obvious death paying for life items out there could be a great evangelistic tool.

All the while I was waiting for you to drop a bomb… and mention abortion as a great transition cue for evangelism and the whole Christ’s death giving life thing. As I see it those who abort a child are often aware of the fact that the life in them, if it lives, will drain their life. A woman may essentially lose her freedom if the child is born, therefore she gives up the life of her child in order to pay for her freedom; the death giving life pattern is once again applied. Seemingly the reason many choose abortion is illuminated by your stated kingdom principle. Through death people gain life, or life is fed on death.

The thing is, that I have been reading some books on freedom and purpose in life and one of the authors describe how she had three abortions (well technically she had 2 abortions and one self induced miscarriage). For the sake of others whom I may share this letter with I will only mention the author’s name and you can look up the title of her book (Cunt if you must know), be forwarned she’s apt to spell her gender womyn, Inga Muscio.

The essential premise of her book is everyone deserves freedom, and she will show women how to live a full life. She attempts to lead others, women mainly, into the full life. She credits her book with providing freedom to others. Your premise that death leads to life, that manure is an excellent fertilizer, is affirmed by her experience, bur her manure is not something I support.

She was able to be free, because she had 2 abortions, and a 3^rd child lost through a self-induced miscarriage. Death does lead her to a fuller life. Manure is apparently an excellent fertilizer, but is it ok to bury 3 fetuses for the sake of freedom? She viewed parenthood as a lose of freedom, which it most certainly can be.

Is it possible that the abortion rights groups are fighting for freedom, the freedom of women, and they are arguing the kingdom principle of death giving life. Can we possibly blame the NOW’s of this world for so vigorously supporting abortion? They must have a sense that this death giving principle is ingrained in the human condition, and this is true. They are seeking freedom and full lives, albeit through the death of the unborn. On the other hand Christians argue so strongly about the rights of the unborn using some of the exact same kingdom principles that Planned Parenthood uses. Are we tracking?

The purpose of this mental exercise is one of understanding and intellectual honesty. The next time I am told that someone has an abortion I think I may understand that they were pursuing freedom and wholeness, using the death leads to life kingdom principle. Will it be an evangelical “Come to the Water” moment? No, I doubt it, but just because I do not support or approve of their choice, does not mean I cannot perhaps see it for what it is—them understanding and practicing an essential kingdom principle. It is easy for me to apply kingdom principles when one’s motives are “good” yet even the results of “bad” motives should be recognized when they follow kingdom principles.

It would have made for a kick ass message side note to rock the worlds of the gray chairs and suggest that abortion is an example of the kingdom reality that was epitomized by Christ’s death on the cross. Manure is not only an excellent fertilizer, but it also stinks if we spread too much of it.

Craig Sinclair

Here is a Letter that you asked for Kimberly B. George (if you are not Kim you can also read it, but please don’t quote from or reference my writing without giving me some credit, perhaps even linking to my work here at crossegg.com).

Letter 3: Males and Rob Bell’s Preaching Tuesday,

October 28, 2003

Beth and I were talking on the way home from a Sunday service and I noticed a pattern that exists among some Mars Hill families. The women really like your preaching. Your knowledge of emotions, and sense of wounded-ness really appeals to their emotional sensibilities. Often when you preach you vividly describe pain and wounds, bitterness and junk. I think to many men these are foreign soil. If you were to vividly describe final drive of Ohio State against Michigan they would be tracking. Discussing emotions and wellbeing with men is a bit like discussing birth control with nuns. The lives of many men are filled not with pain, bitterness and resentment; men’s lives are filled with work and stuff. Guys know about power and promotions. Guys like things, better power drills, nicer cars, car washes, TV’s, guns, season tickets, music, their void is filled with stuff not pain. Men are a often shells of what they could be, but they have found a level of satisfaction in acquiring stuff, or performing at work therefore they continue to put more into whatever it is, and thereby get more out of it– all the while they are scaring and toughening their emotional core with each acquisition or accomplishment. A Jeep isn’t good enough perhaps I need better tires, what about a Hummer, nah too expensive how about a Range Rover? Yea that will get me where I need to be.

Also for many their closest friend is a big green S or a blue M. They attach themselves to an athletic team or hobby because it is acceptable to be passionate about a man’s pursuit. The next coat of wax on their car, the improved surround sound quality of their home stereo; if only I had a 60-inch flat panel TV then the home cinema would be complete. They improve and care for things because they are tangible measures of their success and goodness. Their hearts are hard and they truly have no passion, their wound is buried below all they have accomplished and accumulated. Video games and high scores substitute for being real and genuine.

The stuff culture is not the only thing interfering with men being real, alive, and aware of their hollowness, women are another major wall guys hide behind. Guys often expect that their entire emotional well being should be provided for by women. In childhood the mother is the emotional center of men. In the teen years it’s still mom until the stream of princesses arrive. Guys then expect their wives to be their heart and emotional center. This hope is a lie. Men need to feel and have a heart independent of others or stuff. If a guy cannot show emotion except with his wife, mother, or because Michigan State doesn’t suck this year then something is wrong. Guys have little hope of showing emotions with other guys because first they have to dig through all the stuff they have acquired and then they would need to get away from their emotional walls– then the hardened heart would be all that was left to penetrate.

Often when you preach you cut people to their emotional core; you mention suicide, self-doubt, voices in people’s heads. I believe that these are powerful appeals that often are lost on the men in the audience. Their hearts are hard and encrusted with stereo equipment, personal accomplishments, and women. Talking about the stuff that interferes with men’s ability to feel, or care passionately about anything is generally not present in your presentations to the gray chairs. Your appeals to people’s souls are perhaps lost on group of men with shriveled peanut size hearts, that are buried beneath all the culture trappings of being a man and are sheltered by the emotional strength of women.

Many guys are truly lonely and they take it out on their wives, they expect them to meet all their emotional needs. They never develop genuine male intimacy. Some are actually afraid of going on the homo-suspicion list if they were to consider male-to-male intimacy. Although the real issue is not male-to-male intimacy it is male-to-God intimacy. Targeting more of what you say to the hollow guy, the strong husband (lonely) leader type is perhaps necessary. The men miss you appeals to live in the Kingdom of God because they know they are not emotionally damaged, they don’t have hurt and pain that needs healing-no they have hurt and pain that is buried beneath promotions, sports franchises and wives and mothers.

I hope my little theory that your preaching appeals more to women because of its emotional rawness is of benefit to you. You are a gifted teacher blessed by God and full of his goodness. I hope that my words would be well met as from a friend. I do not pretend to know much but I seek the truth and try to share it through these letters.

May God bless and keep you, and lead you to lead Mars Hill into the Kingdom of God.

Craig Sinclair