I was surprised this year when I was able on my birthday, which is in October, to pick strawberries from our little garden plot. That's the first time I've picked strawberries in October. Today, November 29, I picked another strawberry. I'm not sure if this is because of our mild fall or if it is because I have access to my very own strawberry plants. I must say that if Frank had not left them for us, we surely would not have purchased strawberries for our plot. With such a small space to work with, strawberries hardly seem worth it. After all, you can't pick enough to make jam. Basically we have had enough to pick a few every so often, eating them on the way back to the apartment. But they are sweet, so sweet. And to have a fresh strawberry in November? Well, that is a burst of sunshine on a dreary day.

I've counted it a good thing that after being back "in the world" from the convent for 5 months now I still continue to think about my time in the convent every day. That experience is very much with me and continues to form who I am. Julia said this would be the case and after experiencing a way of life that is as powerful as monasticism, I am not surprised that this should be so. However, this summer I also began, formally, to cease eating meat. My reasons? Well, I really only had one reason: I felt guilty from eating meat, wanted to stop feeling guilty, so I stopped eating it. Yet I think about eating meat nearly every day, contemplating returning to the world of the carniverous. What is with this obsession? I don't think this is nearly as helpful as the regular turning of my mind toward monasticism, yet here I am, regularly turning my mind toward brats in buns with mustard. Still, I am married to a vegetarian and meat is expensive and usually makes me feel guilty. So why is my mind latched on to it? Why can't I just let it go? Should I not let it go? Should I try to change my conscious? I do not even know how to go about doing that. I know it has happened with me because at one point in time I was scandalized at the idea of reading Harry Potter and then the "big deal" disappeared and one day in Athens I picked up Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and began to read about Harry and Hogwarts. So is the lesson then that I should simply wait this out and once being a vegetarian no longer seems a big deal then I can go back to meat-eating?

Note: what follows is really more or less a paraphrase of what my professor said today and I am not giving more specific credit to her because I do not think she would want what she said explicitly to us to be broadcast on the internet for the world to see.

My life at the moment is both interesting and chal (this is, challenging) to quote an obscure no longer running Saturday noontide cartoon. At the moment, it is also invigorating. I just came from lunch with my theology professor and others from our class and two of the things she said were startling and liberating. Beginning with the first: yesterday's lecture was on the Church's Israelology, that is, her theology of Israel throughout history and the consequences of that theology. The consequences, as is rather evident, have been by and large dire for Jews. A natural question that proceeds from such a survey is what should the Church's Israelology be? How should we view Jesus in relation to Judaism? Did the "new covenant" replace the old? Did it fulfill the old and radically transform it? Is there any way of talking about this that is not offensive to Jews and their entire history as God's people? My professor today began by recounting to us God's way of getting people's attention in the Bible. At Babel, what did God do? God scattered the people and confused their language in order to get their attention. When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, what was he trying to accomplish? Trying to test Abraham? And what is a test if not another way to get a person's attention, get someone to concentrate on what is important, and in Abraham's case in a way that would change his life and the way he lived it? The Exodus from Egypt? At first it looks like Israel has to get God's attention to be delivered, but from then on it is a series of events wherein God is continually reminding the people of who God is and who they are in relation to their God. This pattern of revelation continues until finally, not only does God try to get Israel's attention once more, but also the attention of the world. He sent Jesus. This time the son was killed, and boy did that get everyone's attention. But the coming of Jesus does not negate the fact that God chose Israel. God made a covenant with Israel. And God's promises are not void, nor are they made non-chalantly. So perhaps Israel is still God's people. In fact, Israel is fine. Of course Jews can fall away, but so can the Christian (we are all familiar with the Christian "hypocrite" epithet). The implication of this is that Christians do not need to proselyte Jews. God takes care of God's people (not always nicely, perhaps) and the coming of Jesus is the coming of God explicitly to the Gentiles. We are brought into the fold. There is no wall of separation between Jew and Gentile anymore.

The second mind-shattering issue discussed revolved around the many theologies that are appearing today which are attempting to rectify the situation of one theology which comes from a specific context being used as representative of the whole of humanity (or Christendom). What I mean is, theology has been done from a certain perspective (even this is simplifying things since this "certain perspective" includes quite a bit of diversity of place and people) thus excluding other perspectives. So we have many different liberation theologies. We have feminist and womanist theology. Each ethnicity and life situation experiences the gospel differently and then seeks to interpret it and present it accordingly. This is attempting to rectify a problem, but my professor thinks it might be possibly creating that same problem in new ways if we are not careful. What is the solution? I asked her. She told me what she is trying to do: trying to do theology out of her context, out of her situation as a mother, without talking about mothers. Without making Jesus a mother. In this way she is in dialogue with other theologians and not creating a new theology with herself as the center point.

I hope these recountings were clear. Please do respond with thoughts and other questions.