This open letter is a response to Lori Alexander’s blog The Transformed Wife, and more specifically, the article that recently went viral, entitled “Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins without Tattoos.” This blog post is problematic for a number of different reasons, but cuts especially deep for me. The author writes about the apparent dangers of Christian women attending college, of husbands needing to spend years teaching his wife the correct ways to act, think and live from the resulting damage, and never learning to properly run a home. As a collegiate scholar myself, and a woman who became a Christian only after identifying for years as agnostic, I am appalled at the advice Lori Alexander gives to young Christian women. In my open letter, I wish to examine and explain the areas of her post that are especially harmful, like the notion that a woman must read the Bible with her father or husband in order to understand, or that it is always protection for a woman to live under her father’s roof until she gets married. If I had read this blog post when I still identified as agnostic, I would have fled even further from the Christian religion and its advocates. And this, perhaps, will be the main topic of my open letter: this blog exemplifies the condemnation, grief, and guilt associated with the Christian religion, and it becomes necessary to remind the author of the grace and forgiveness that the Gospel brings to those that identify as Christian.

I am compelled to write this letter because of the misrepresentation of Christianity and its teachings apparent in Lori Alexander’s blog. I work hard to understand and defend my faith through a logical and historical lens, and it is articles like this that disqualify any argument for Christianity that I might be able to make. I wish to point to the inconsistencies and half-truths that Alexander argues, so that those that come into contact with her blog post do not become misguided or discouraged on the basis of her teachings. While I identified as agnostic, a blog like Lori Alexander’s would have been detrimental to my motivation to learn about both Christianity and religiosity in general with an open mind. I feel compelled to convince those on a spiritual journey of their own that the author’s views do not reflect the views of many others that identify as Christian, and she does not need to be the main representation of the Christian faith.

The situation that I address in my letter is the possibility that Lori Alexander’s blog might have reached people unfamiliar with Christianity, and created in them an inaccurate idea of what Christians believes.

The opportune and/or critical moment for this situation is present in the widespread nature of the blog. This summer, Alexander’s post “Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins without Tattoos” went viral across the Internet, and the critical aspect of this situation is the urgency for a response. Although many have responded in disagreement with Alexander, I wish to offer my own opposing views as yet another way to understand Christianity, and what I consider to be a more accurate interpretation of Christian beliefs. As summer has only just ended, the opportunity to respond remains a possibility, and can be considered the critical moment to take advantage of.

My specific target audience is Lori Alexander, the creator of the blog The Transformed Wife. A wider audience that I might engage with in this letter is young Christian women, as this was Alexander’s intended audience for her original blog post. I would also hope to engage an audience of those that were equally disturbed by her blog post, so that I can portray a different image of what Christianity can look like.

The constraints of my rhetorical strategy can be many, as speaking openly about my faith is difficult and vulnerable. Some of my potential audiences may have been hurt by Christian peers, spurned by the Christian church, or have been previously exposed to harsh views like that of Lori Alexander’s, and reading a blog about Christianity in general (regardless of my opinion) may be challenging to endure. Therefore, in order to be inclusive and loving towards all audiences, I hope to use a tone of voice and specific vocabulary that will help me remain both true to my own beliefs and respectful to the beliefs of others. Even as I explain my grievances with Lori Alexander I must be gentle, as she is still a woman I might call a sister in Christ, and deserves the same respect I attempt to give to the wider audience. These “inartistic proofs,” or values, assumptions, and socio-political ideologies are present throughout the entirety of the letter, as spirituality and religiosity are extremely personal and sometimes heart-breaking areas within someone’s life. The resulting persona that I feel I must take on will therefore naturally have an affect on my discourse, but I deem this as a necessary evil in order to speak about the topics involved.

The appeals of my rhetorical strategy include pathos, ethos, and logos in turn. The pathos (or emotion) of my open letter will become apparent within my explanation of why I chose to write this blog post, since I can easily recall a time when a post like Alexander’s would have invoked a stronger emotion than an open letter in response. The ethos (or ethics) of my open letter will be most apparent in my explanation to Lori Alexander as to why her blog presents more insidious beliefs than she might realize. Lastly, the logos (or logic) of my open letter will be most apparent in my use of the Judeo-Christian Bible or prominent Christian figures for quotes or explanations in order to better explain and defend the beliefs that counter Alexander’s.

The overall purpose I intend to express is that there is more than one way to be a Christian, simply because there is more than one way to be a human being. I intend to make clear that most of what Lori Alexander advocates for is inappropriate and inaccurate, leaving out important areas of Scripture that render her examples invalid, or over-generalizing the desires of Christian women.

My intended strategy for the open letter constructs persuasion toward an argument, an opinion, and a redesign in combination. By addressing my letter to Lori Alexander in direct opposition to her original post, I am expressing opinions that counter her perspectives and creating an argument for a differing view of the Christian faith. By nature I am redesigning and shifting her blog of half-truths into an open letter that breaks down her argument into pieces, and only keeping what I view as accurate.

Multimodal sources that I can bring into my composition in order to support or strengthen my persuasion might be photos, videos, or graphics. Utilizing the photo that Lori Alexander used on her original blog post might be effective in creating a sense of irony, or giving an example of a video from her YouTube Channel and how it might overlap may be interesting, as the reader many get to understand her views exactly as she speaks them.

pallimed.org-An open letter to the spouses of palliative care professionals

Author: Emily Riegel, MD

When: December 31, 2014

1. The large topic or issue addressed in this open letter is palliative care, and more specifically, the experience of being a palliative care professional while also managing a relationship with a spouse.
2. The specific situation addressed within this open letter is mainly the author’s response to her spouse’s question, “How are you? How was your day?” She lists the possible answers she might give to this question on any given day, and the insufficiency of each one in helping her spouse to understand more than a mere glimpse of her experience. The lack of depth (and to quote the author, “honesty”) in her answer of “fine” or “it was a crazy day” leads her to write this open letter, in order to shed some light on the reality of what she faces from day to day.
3. The exigence of the author, or the motivation, is her desire for honesty. The answers she gives to her spouse on a daily basis are not sufficient in explaining the intricacies, the delightedness, and the sadness that regularly accompany her work. It was also December 31 when she posted this letter, the end of another year, and this motivates Riegel to be completely honest before starting 2015 with her spouse.
4. The persona of the author is the voice the author has chosen for this particular open letter. The persona she takes largely appeals to the pathos of the audience, as she describes her personal experiences working as a palliative care physician. She describes being yelled at and blamed for things outside of her control, and needing time to process or understand certain experiences for herself before she can bring her spouse into the picture. The author humbles herself throughout the process, and therefore also takes on an apologetic persona. Additionally, Riegel takes on a persona of gratitude, for as she nears the end of the open letter, she thanks her spouse for all the details of his/her reactions, including patience, empathy, and compassion.
5. The purpose of the letter is to shed some light on the emotional toll that working as a palliative care professional can have one someone, and how that might affect their personal relationships as well. Riegel is normalizing the experience for other healthcare professionals, especially those that work with people as they near the end of their lives.
6. Some specific points that the author presents are 1) The mundane monotony of life can and most likely will have an effect on most couples 2) There is a difficulty in trying to explain the roller coaster of emotions she experiences in her profession each day 3) Retelling stories that have a personal and impactful significance are nearly impossible to describe adequately 4) Despite actions sometimes to the contrary, the author will always hold a love and appreciation for her spouse.
7. The intended audience of this open letter is both her spouse and other palliative care physicians who can relate to the emotions she expresses.

Author: Kaitlin M. Roig-DeBellis

When: February 15, 2018

Brief Overview: Kaitlin M. Roig-DeBellis wrote an open letter to Melissa Falkowski following the school shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Roig-DeBellis was a teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary School when a gunman attacked, and wished to share with Falkowski the unfortunate similarities she endured years earlier. Most notably, she reminds Falkowski of four important things: she is a hero, she has a story to share with others, she is stronger than she might currently feel, and there is no moving on, only moving forward. As Roig-DeBellis has had to grapple with the aftermath of such an atrocity, she seeks to give encouragement and hope to someone that  may be desperate for support.

Important Vocabulary: Unconscionable, meaning not right or reasonable, or unreasonably excessive. Atrocity, meaning an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury.

Questions: The author mentions that in the wake of tragedy, there are many questions that can never be answered, but there are also many that can. What are the questions that have answers, and what are the answers she has found? Additionally, the author mentions that while this day will forever be a part of Falkowski, what has happened does not have to define her. What steps can someone take to help move forward after something disastrously monumental has occurred?

Noteworthy Quotes: “A hero is an ordinary person who rises to the occasion under remarkable circumstance. That was you today. You are a hero—don’t ever forget it.” “The ‘club’ that you have now joined is one that no one wants to be a part of and has unfortunately grown exponentially in the past five years.” “You don’t forget the sounds of people screaming, pleading, all the while thinking you are going to be next.” “We can stand up and say enough is enough.”

Initial Reactions: This open letter is able to be both raw and poignant without losing focus on the hope and encouragement being given, which reflects the nature of how tragedies are often dealt with in their aftermath. It is powerful coming from someone that experienced a situation remarkably similar to that of Falkowski’s, and is able to give important reminders on truths to hold onto in uncertain times.

 

Author: Ilene Raymond Rush

When: 2018

Brief Overview: As Valentine’s Day approached, Ilene Raymond Rush wrote an open letter to her endocrinologist in which she details the struggles of finding a doctor that is sympathetic to the emotional and physical trials of Type 2 Diabetes. Rush lists several important qualities that her endocrinologists exhibits, including: an ability to listen, thoroughness, compassion, a willingness to share current research and news on diabetes, and a non-judgmental nature.

Important Vocabulary: Endocrinologist, meaning a doctor who has special training in diagnosing and treating disorders of the endocrine system (the glands and organs that make hormones). These disorders include diabetes, infertility, and thyroid, adrenal, and pituitary gland problems. A mash note, meaning a letter that expresses infatuation with or gushing appreciation of someone. A1C test, which is used to diagnose diabetes. An A1C level of 6.5 percent or higher on two separate occasions indicates you have diabetes. A result between 5.7 and 6.4 percent is considered pre-diabetes, which indicates a high risk of developing diabetes.

Noteworthy Quotes: “Who were these frogs? Before Dr. X, there was the doctor who took one look at me, announced I carried too much weight in my middle, and told me I needed to exercise (I was, at the time, running six miles per day).” “It may mean changing practices and chasing down medical records. But the boost you can get from finally having someone who truly understands what you go through day to day to manage this disease is worth it not only psychologically but medically.”

Initial Reactions: Rush’s open letter serves as a reminder for health care professionals that psychological wellbeing can and does play an important part in physical health, and treating patients with respect and compassion can have a lasting impact on how they take care of themselves in their homes.

It is a difficult question to answer, “What is the water in your life?” By nature of answering the question, I can only focus on the aspects of my surroundings I can recognize for what they are, and will not be able to truly answer the question, “What do you ignore (or possibly not even see)?” That being said, I will do my best to accurately consider what is seen and unseen within my life.

I readily notice the songs playing through the sound system of whatever stores I frequent. I notice when someone has incredibly smooth skin, as I have struggled with acne for years. I notice the moods my friends are in when I greet them, and consider conversation topics in lieu of what I perceive they might be feeling.

I rarely consider the past and present struggles of the people I pass in the street, as I will most likely never speak to them about whatever concerns they might have. This may seem egocentric, but it is more likely an adaptation adopted to get through the day without enduring an existential crisis while walking through Target.

Yet on the whole, the experiences of people do matter to me. I chose and would choose again and again to double major in psychology and sociology, as I do care about other’s experiences. However, it might be that since it’s nearly impossible to glean valuable information from individual case studies, I have stopped noticing the real and important lives behind the statistics presented to me in class. We focus on the differences of our experiences, but people inherently strive for similar things. Shelter and love, food and comfort, camaraderie and acceptance. My viewpoints of course do not always align with that of others, but I prefer to instead focus on what I have in common with someone before I ruminate on what it is that makes them dissimilar from me. It is this that I feel David Foster Wallace meant by making the point that he and I are both not the center of the universe. And if that is the case, then it is only by considering the closeness and parallels that we have with others that we can then move beyond the default setting of our thinking.

Author/Speaker: David Foster Wallace

Where: Kenyon College

When: 2005

Brief Overview: A speech given in honor of the graduating class of Kenyon College, in which David Foster Wallace directly juxtaposes common themes of U.S. commencement speeches by arguing that the meaning of a liberal arts education is not to give students the capacity to think, but rather give them a choice of what to think about.

Important Vocabulary: Platitude, meaning a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful. Banal, meaning so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring. Didactic, meaning intended to teach, particularly in having moral instruction as an ulterior motive.

Questions: Who or what does David Foster Wallace suggest the listener or reader worship?

Noteworthy Quotes: “The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.” “Learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think.” “There happen to be whole, large parts of adult American life that nobody talks about in commencement speeches. One such part involves boredom, routine and petty frustration.” “There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.” “That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.”

Initial Reactions: This speech serves as an important reminder of several life-changing lessons, including but not limited to the fact that I (and we) as an individual(s) am not the center of the universe, that I should consistently and constantly consider what and who it is that I am worshipping, and that an awareness of the world around me is essential to live on a setting other than default.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton