onehandclapping

New Blog

2007-11-05T20:18:00.000-06:00

From now on I will be blogging at julieclawson.com

I mentioned a few weeks back about possibly switching my blog host. I've been playing with creating a new blog for a few weeks and now I am finally taking the plunge and switching. The new blog is a selfhosted blog through Wordpress and is still titled onehandclapping. I've uploaded all my old posts (yes even the really pathetic early ones) and have all the same links and stuff. It still needs work and I'll be tweaking it, but it's mostly all up and running. (At least I think I've learned how to not crash it every time I try to do anything).

Anyway - here's the shameless self-promotion part as I now start from scratch with my stats and Technorati ranking. If you have linked to me on your blog could you please update the link to my new blog. And if you don't already have a link to me, this would be a perfect opportunity to add that link. :)

Since I'm announcing online changes I should also mention that I will no longer be using my ShalomMJC@msn.com email account. I can no longer access it through Firefox and am too lazy to sign into IE just to check email. So my julieclawson (at) gmail (dot) com address will be my main address from now on.

Thanks! And see you all at julieclawson.com.

Join the Revolution

2007-11-04T21:38:00.000-06:00

As we ended our nearly two year study on the book of Luke this morning in church, we took a look at how Jesus open the eyes of his disciples to see how the whole of scripture points to him. While on one level it would have been nice if Luke had included that sermon in his Gospel, one can also interpret the entire book of Luke as being that sermon. The whole book echoes the themes of the Old Testament fulfilled in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Part of the discussion included looking at the categories N.T. Wright presents in Simply Christian. In summing up the main themes of scripture, that represent as well the deepest longings of human existence, Wright creates four categories. These include - The Torah which defines our relationships, The Temple which represents our spiritually, The Kingdom which demonstrates justice, and New Creation which demonstrates our longing for beauty. These themes show up over and over again in the Old Testament and in the teaching of Jesus. He is calling us to live lives that tap into those longings and can be fulfilled through them. By developing right relationships, discovering true spirituality, seeking justice, and pursuing beauty we live in the ways we were meant to live.

But those are often the very things that are ridiculed by the world and discarded in favor of power and success. It is often the countercultural revolutionaries who uphold those biblical values while the mainstream promotes contrary values. I found it amusing last night that I saw that cultural struggle represented in one of my favorite movies. Moulin Rouge tells the story of the fin de siècle Bohemian revolutionaries in Paris who are seeking a new way of living out their values of Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love. They are of course despised and condemned as silly and impractical and told to cure themselves of "this ridiculous obsession with love." I find the movie brilliant on many levels, but it was a good reminder that pursuing the values of the Kingdom is strange and challenges the dominant paradigm of culture.

To promote right relationships and to seek justice is to love others. To discover true spirituality and beauty is to love God and his creation. To actually live out these great commandments as it were goes against the messages of selfish ambition, greed, isolation, and power that the world promotes as primary. To follow Jesus one has to be revolutionary. Being ridiculously obsessed with love is impractical but it's the way we are supposed to live. If it takes changing the way we approach everything in order to live the life we were meant to live, are we willing to do it? Is our faith real enough for us to leave everything and follow Jesus? To stop caring about ourselves and start caring for others? To join the revolution?

Token Gestures and True Justice

2007-11-01T15:41:00.000-06:00

As a follow up to my post a couple of days ago regarding toys made in sweatshops, I want to point out other recent news regarding children being held in slave-like conditions to produce clothing for The Gap. An article Sunday in the London Observer revealed that children as young as ten years old have been subjected to work long hours without pay and regular threats and beatings in an Indian textile factory subcontracted to produce clothing for Gap Kids. This clothing was destined for American and European markets this Christmas. Children were being held in slavery to we could buy a $30 sequined t-shirt.

Gap of course did what it could to save its own butt and severed ties with the factory and is withholding the clothing. That makes them look good as a company, but does nothing to help the children. What is the Gap doing to assure that these kids won't be harmed because now their slaver isn't getting income? What is Gap doing to stop illegal indentured servitude that they found themselves a part of? Just severing ties saves face, but it doesn't solve the problem

This isn't the first time Gap has faced negative press because of its usage of sweatshops. Just last year reports came in of Gap clothing being made in sweatshops in Jordon where young teenage girls were trafficked in, stripped of their passports, held in slavery, beaten and raped by the factory owners. Over the last few years, Gap has attempted to overcome those damaging reports (as if the public cares anyway) by participating in token acts of charity and justice. Gap featured prominently in the Red Campaign by selling $50 t-shirts of which a portion would be donated to AIDS relief work. My favorite token gesture is the one Charles Kernaghan, Executive Director of the National Labor Committee, mentioned in his recent interview with Democracy Now!. Gap apparently created a Code of Conduct for their factories - voluntary compliance of course. It was printed on treeless paper using non-toxic soy based ink, all perfectly environmentally friendly and sustainable. The problem was that it was just a PR job, it had never actually been translated into a language besides English. The document about caring for people that itself cared for the earth never made it to the people it was meant to protect. The document was only to calm the fears of English speakers wanting to know that their clothing was ethically produced.

So while all token gestures are not just complete BS like Gap's Code of Conduct, they still remain mere token gestures. When coffee companies can pay their farmers below living wage and put production demands on them that force the farmers to use unsustainable practices, but by building one school near one of their coffee farms they can appear caring and just to their customers, why bother with anything more than token gestures? When a church group can volunteer once a year at a soup kitchen or fill up a couple of shoeboxes for Operation Christmas Child and feel like they have helped the poor, token gestures are really all we see. Acting justly has become for many a one time event and not a day to day lifestyle. We have settled for token gestures instead of holistic approaches in our lives, and so let companies get away with token gestures instead of true reform. No wonder things have gotten so out of hand.

Halloween 2007

2007-10-31T19:10:00.000-06:00

So I'm sure the Halloween parties are still continuing somewhere, but our celebrations are over. The Clawson family, at Emma's insistence, dressed up as pirates this year. I honestly don't know if she got the pirate theme from Veggie Tales ("The Pirates who don't do anything" which has been stuck in my head this entire week) or from the Dora Pirate Adventure. But we all had to be pirates (Daddy Pirate, Mommy Pirate, and Emma Pirate as she called us).

Last night our church threw a Halloween Party for the people we rent space from on Sunday morning. During the week the space is a community center for mentally handicapped adults. They are a fantastic group who are so transparent in their love for each other and their caregivers. There is a lot we can learn about true community from them. But we wanted to say thanks for letting us rent the space and so threw a big party. It was a great time full of games, crafts, and tons of junk food.

Tonight Mike took Emma around Trick or Treating and I stayed home to pass out candy and hot Spiced Apple Cider. It was really strange having it be warm enough (barely) to sit out on the porch the whole evening and for it to stay light so late on Halloween (I like this Daylight Savings change). The Superhero costumes were way down this year while the scary masks and gender bender costumes were way up. The number of boys I saw dressed as princesses, cheerleaders, and even one French maid was amusing. I saw just one Hermione and one High King Peter (from Narnia) who was really happy because I actually knew what his costume was (I apparently was the only one all evening). My favorite though was the little boy in a Darth Vader costume with instead of the mask a rainbow colored plastic mohawk. I thought it was funny. We all ate way too much candy and have tons leftover. In all another fun Halloween.

Safe and Ethical Toys?

2007-10-30T22:12:00.000-06:00

It's that time of year again. Halloween is so over and the store shelves are being cleared for Christmas. Time to start your Christmas shopping. Unfortunately recent news has highlighted that the "Santa's little helpers" making the toys for our children are actually young Chinese women forced to work 90 hour work weeks for pennies an hour and trafficked children held in slavery forced to work in factories. Wow doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy with holiday cheer?

In a report released this past week by the National Labor Committee in Support of Human and Worker Rights, the atrocities committed by companies like Gap and Mattel were revealed. Mattel has been in the news a lot these past few months because of revelations of excessive amounts of toxic lead paint in their toys. I find it very interesting that after the lead paint scandal hit the news, my inbox was flooded with emails from other concerned moms spreading the news that our children could be exposed to hazardous conditions. So far no public service emails from moms concerned that people were abused and kept in slavery to make our children's toys. Guess it's the old, "if it doesn't affect me and mine, then I don't give a shit."

You can read the full report here and a good interview transcript summarizing the report at Democracy Now!. The horrific conditions at these factories are detailed in these reports. Basically young women making Barbie Mattel toys for Walmart are paid just 53 cents an hour and $21.34 a week. "Forced to work excessive overtime, the toy workers are routinely at the factory 82 to 87 hours a week, while toiling 66 to 70 hours. The standard shift is 14 ½ hours a day, from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., six days a week. Mandatory overtime at the Xin Yi Factory exceeds China’s legal limit by 260 percent! Workers are routinely cheated on nearly 20 percent of the wages legally due them – resulting in the loss of two days wages each week. After deductions for primitive dorms (12 workers share each room sleeping on double-level bunk beds) and company food that the workers call “awful,” the workers’ take-home wage is just 46 cents an hour. Managers routinely yell and curse at the workers, and it is common – nearly every day – to see young women workers crying. Workers who are insulted have but two options – to bow their heads and remain silent or to quit and leave without the back wages due to them. Workers can be fired for having an “inattentive attitude” or for “speaking during working hours.” Workers falling behind in their mandatory product goal will be punished with the loss of five hours wages. Workers are prohibited from standing up and must remain seated on their benches at all times during working hours. Workers report that the factory is overcrowded and extremely hot, and that everyone is dripping in their own sweat.Workers in the spray paint department who cannot tolerate the strong acrid stench of the oil paint are immediately fired. Failure to properly clean the shared bathroom in the dorm will result in the loss of one and a half day’s wages."

What I find most interesting in this whole thing is Mattel's behavior. This is the Mattel that recently apologized to China for the "excessive" recall of so many lead tainted toys. So if they are apologizing for attempting to make toys safe, then I don't have much confidence in their treatment of workers. This is also the company that sues someone on average once a month for Barbie copyright infringement. Apparently Barbie has more rights than the 14 year old girl who made her in a sweatshop. This is the Mattel that "sought and won special “waivers” from the government of China to pay below the legal minimum wage in its factories. Mattel also received waivers to unilaterally extend allowable working hours to seventy-two hours per week, which exceeds China’s legal limit on overtime by 295 percent." Oh and this is also the Mattel whose CEO paid himself $7,278,178 last year in wages and other compensation—which is 6,533 times what he pays his toy workers in China.

So who wants to go Christmas shopping?

So What's Your Excuse?

2007-10-29T15:45:00.000-06:00

Yesterday in church I led the conversation on the Great Commission. We have been making our way through the book of Luke for the last couple of years and have finally arrived at the end, which of course just means we are diving straight into Acts next. For many of us who grew up in the evangelical church, the Great Commission involves nothing more than convincing other people to believe in Jesus. Preaching forgiveness and making disciples simply meant getting people to intellectually assent to a certain set of ideas. We've left out the whole part about training people in everything Jesus taught.

So yesterday we looked at the mission Jesus sent his followers on (with the help of the Spirit) in light of how Jesus himself described his own mission in Luke 4 (to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom for the prisoners,recovery of sight for the blind, and to release the oppressed). The Spirit of the Lord was on Jesus to fulfill his mission and Jesus promised the Spirit so that the disciples could fulfill theirs as well (which included training others in the way Jesus trained them to follow). But sometimes doing that mission - spreading the message of forgiveness and freedom through our words and deeds - is hard. We obviously have failed at the whole setting the oppressed free and bringing good news to the poor (since there is still oppression and poverty), so there is a lot more work that needs to be done to fulfill the Great Commission. That's where the Spirit comes in to kick out butts.

I love the example Sarah Dylan Breuer gives as she compares what the Spirit does to a washing machine -

Washing machines don't work if the load is stagnant; without motion, there's no transformation. So the washing machines that I grew up with had something at their center that bounced around to push what's at the center out to the margins and bring what's at the margins in to the center such that the whole load could be transformed.

We call that thing at the center of the washing machine an 'agitator,' and I can think of no better word for what the Spirit does for us. The call of God's Spirit pushes those of us at the center of our world's all-too-concentrated power and wealth out to the margins to welcome the marginalized to the center. If we stay where we are and let the rest of the world stay as it is, we're not fully experiencing the presence and work of the Spirit, and we won't benefit as fully from the transformation that the Spirit is bringing.

We need that agitation, that kick in the butt, to actually be out there engaging in the mission Christ called us to. Our discussion yesterday concluded with a time of brainstorming of everyday practical things we each could do to engage in that mission followed by us having to list the excuses we give for why we don't actually engage. Here's a sampling of some of the stuff we came up with.

Ways we can engage in Mission

- Be a volunteer

- Get to know our neighbors

- Live more frugally and simply

- Take the time to be educated on justice issues

- Learn Spanish

- Buy Fairly Traded items

- Do chores for your elderly neighbor

- Go to student's soccer games

- Write actual letters to lawmakers

- Visit the "unseen" in our culture

Our Excuses for Not Doing Anything

- I'm too shy

- I won't make a big difference anyway

- It's too expensive

- I don't know where to begin

- There is always something better I could be doing to help others, so I end up doing nothing at all

What would you add to either of these lists?

Pumpkin Time

2007-10-28T19:22:00.000-06:00

So last weekend we took Emma out to a local farm to pick some pumpkins. She got to ride in a wagon out to the patches to help pick out the ones we wanted. Then Mike got to pull the wagon with her and three big pumpkins back to the front :)

Tonight we carved the pumpkin. Emma really got into pulling out the pumpkin gunk and just started eating the raw pumpkin. I made roasted pumpkin seeds while Mike carved. Emma thought it was the coolest thing ever to put a candle in it and go outside in the dark. Let's just see it if last the few days until Halloween!

Book Review - It's A Dance

2007-10-27T10:07:00.000-06:00

I recently had the opportunity to read a review copy of It's A Dance written by Patrick Oden. When I first heard about this book I was intrigued - a theology book about the Holy Spirit written in story form. I am aware that the role of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned often in emerging church discussions. Perhaps the fundamentalist/evangelical roots of many of us in this conversation who grew up being told that the salvation of Pentecostals and Charismatics wasn't for sure and that the Holy Spirit no longer works in our current dispensation may have something to do with that. But whatever the case, I haven't heard much talk about the holy Spirit recently and so wanted to explore It's a Dance.

The book is set up focusing on a writing assignment of a southern Californian journalist, Luke. His assignment leads him to visit and review churches in the area in search of something new and different to capture the readers attention. While the assignment is part of his job, the search echoes Luke's own spiritual quest to arrive at some sort of understanding and expression of faith he can accept. This quest leads him to a very different sort of church that meets in a pub. Luke then discovers the hows and why of this church's differences as he sits down for long discussions with the pastor and church attendees. Through these discussions we hear the stories of what brought people to this different church (often stories of pain) and are exposed to the basic theology driving the church. All the while the presence of the Holy Spirit makes itself known as the conversation returns again and again to how the Spirit is at the center of what drives the church.

I personally enjoyed reading the theological exploration in conversational format. Many of the conversations in the book reminded me of ones I have participated in from time to time. There were points where the writing slipped out of conversational mode into sermon mode, but then again when you are writing through the voice of a pastor, it is hard not to sermonize every once in awhile. Although the book does not use footnotes (they would have broken up the flow of the conversation), Oden lists his sources at the end of the book and one can tell that centuries of theological traditions and reflections informed the dialogue in the book. As I read I encountered ideas common in emerging church circles as well as explorations of the Holy Spirit that were new to my understanding of faith. It was a fun intellectual journey to take.

In the presentation of the "different" church Luke encounters, it is easy to recognize many of the trendy trappings of relevant churches. They met in a pub connected to a coffee shop/bookstore, they don't do programs, they offer a prayer room for contemplative prayer, they eschew the typical patterns of modern American churches and so forth. Nothing wrong of course with any of those things, they just fit the common stereotypes of what emerging churches look like. I appreciated that Oden went beyond describing the stylistic structure of the church and told the stories of the people who identify with that church. Reading their stories and discovering how they came to find a church home there fleshed out the theology presented in the book. Their lives represented theology lived out and were a great reminder of the real life implications of all that we believe. Through them one could see the Holy Spirit moving in the never-ending dance to draw us into faith and worship.

I think this book is a needed addition to the growing library of books on how we do church in an emerging culture. It is an accessible read and will be helpful to those who understand theology more relationally than didactically.

More Harry Potter

2007-10-26T08:45:00.000-06:00

I just stumbled across this article/interview with J.K. Rowling in which she discusses the religious imagery in Harry Potter 7. In it she confirms that the tombstone quotes epitomize the entire series (confirming my theories) and that Harry was a Christ figure overcoming death (sorry Dr. Jacobs).

I thought it was an interesting read and I liked her concluding quote - "I go to church myself," she declared. "I don't take any responsibility for the lunatic fringes of my own religion."

Overhearing a Crisis of Faith

2007-10-25T08:52:00.000-06:00

So I had another interesting lunch yesterday. No, it didn't involve crazy people being offended that I exist, but it did involve overhearing a rather interesting conversation. I don't mean to eavesdrop, really, but it was impossible not to hear this conversation. And plus once I heard some of it, it was hard to tune out.

Emma and I once again had a day of appointments and errands and stopped for lunch. At the booth right behind us were two older women, they had to be at least in their late 60's and looked the epitome of "grandma." They were just finishing their food when we arrived, but right as I sat down I heard one of them bring up a conversation in a way that implied this conversation was the main thing she had been wanting to talk about all along. She basically told her friend that she thinks she had lost her faith. She describes going through the motions of church, still doing all the churchy stuff, but feeling like there is nothing there. She described it as being like she had been eating at a certain table her whole life but now the table just disappeared and she doesn't know what to do. She clarified that this had nothing to do with anything bad that happened, or anything a person did, it just happened.

I missed what they discussed next, but then I heard her friend suggest she attend an evening service at another church where they do things "differently." The lady replied that she wouldn't be welcome there because she was too old. She then started talking about her relatives who are agnostic but who are deeply committed to a women for peace and justice group. She said this group has been around for over 100 years passionately caring about these things. She said she felt so inadequate just now discovering that she should be caring as well. Her friend just said, I kid you not, "but that's just the social gospel".

That's all I overheard. You can see why I eavesdropped. I found it fascinating to listen to a much older person who has been integrally involved in the traditional church model her whole life having the same crises of faith and awakening to justice issues that many of us in the emerging church are having. Not that I think its weird, just more rare. I felt for her for not feeling welcome at what was most likely an emerging style worship service because of her age. I recall a similar issue at the last Midwest Emerging Women gathering. An older woman showed up to that event and told me that it was the first emerging event she felt welcomed at because of her age. In the promo material I had included a line about how women of all ages are welcome to attend, and it took finally seeing that in print for her to feel like she could participate. I hope this other lady from the restaurant finds a place to connect where her questions are heard and she can pursue Christ's call to justice. I so wanted to jump in on the conversation, but I'm the type person who would never actually do that. I am just grateful for the reminder that these questions are pertinent no matter what age a person is.

Trappings of a World in Which We Do Not Believe

2007-10-24T00:56:00.000-06:00

So this month's Synchroblog is on Halloween, or more precisely about people sharing their thoughts, their experiences, and their expertise on the subject of "A Christian Response to Halloween" (or at least something remotely connected to that idea.) When I first heard about it I was excited to take the time to do research and pull together my ideas on reclaiming the roots of Halloween for Christians as a continuation of my post last month. But honestly I hit a wall. Nothing inspired me. Nothing grabbed my attention. The only thing I kept coming back to was a scene from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. In this scene Voldemort has arrived in Godric's Hollow with the intention of murdering Harry. It is Halloween and he passes houses decorated for the evening and children masquerading as pumpkins. Voldemort refers to such things as "all the tawdry Muggle trappings of a world in which they did not believe."

At Halloween our modern cultural rituals are a dim reflection of the historical practice of connecting with and honoring those who have come before. We lost the true meaning, but keep the trappings in hopes that we can connect in some way to something bigger than ourselves. We bring out the ghosts, jack-o-lanterns, and black cats not understanding what they mean, but longing nonetheless to grasp hold of a fleeting glimpse of the mysterious. We watch horror movies in hopes that fear, as raw and intense of an emotion as it is, will at least make us feel something beyond ourselves. But these things still remain trappings of a world in which we don't fully believe.

Trappings of a world in which we do not believe. To what extent does that statement reflect the entire edifice of this thing we call Christianity? How much of our faith experience involves decorating our lives with symbols of that which we think might be fun if it were real but which is obviously not real enough to make a difference in our lives? Are all the trappings of church just forgotten symbols of a deeper reality? Do we desperately seek the next worship high in order to convince ourselves that we actually do feel something?

I don't have the answers, but there are times when I take a look at what we do at church and wonder why the hell are we doing these things. I'm sure those rituals held some real meaning for some people once upon a time, but I just don't get it now. It seems like the rituals, the trappings of faith, have become the only cultural artifact of faith. Much like plastic pumpkins and ghoulish blow-up lawn ornaments have replaced the historical roots of Halloween which are now only an echo, has this production we call church replaced the life Jesus called us to live? Is what we are doing at church just a hollow cultural echo of what we were meant to be?

Halloween and Christianity are safe because they are no longer connected to their roots. We can play around with them and only occasionally be reminded of the bigger mystery they represent. I do not fear Halloween because I only see a hollow artifice without roots (not that I fear those roots, but that's another story). But I do fear Christianity when it is a hollow artifice. Trapping of a world in which we do not believe can be dangerous. Ignoring the wild and deep power of God as we engage in rituals of worship doesn't sit well with me. I think we need to start lifting the veil and start believing again.

If you want to read other more coherent contributions to this Synchroblog (that maybe actually address the topic...) check out -
The Christians and the Pagans Meet for Samhain at Phil Wyman's Square No More
Our Own Private Zombie: Death and the Spirit of Fear by Lainie Petersen
Julie Clawson at One Hand Clapping
John Morehead at John Morehead's Musings
Vampire Protection by Sonja Andrews
What's So Bad About Halloween? at Igneous Quill
H-A-double-L-O-double-U-double-E-N Erin Word
Halloween....why all the madness? by Reba Baskett
Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
KW Leslie at The Evening of Kent
Hallmark Halloween by John Smulo
Mike Bursell at Mike's Musings
Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
Removing Christendom from Halloween at On Earth as in Heaven
Vampires or Leeches: A conversation about making the Day of the Dead
meaningful by David Fisher
Encountering hallow-tide creatively by Sally Coleman
Kay at Chaotic Spirit
Apples and Razorblades at Johnny Beloved
Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
Fall Festivals and Scary Masks at The Assembling of the Church
Why Christians don't like Zombies at Hollow Again
Peering through the negatives of mission Paul Walker
Sea Raven at Gaia Rising
Halloween: My experiences by Lew A
Timothy Victor at Tim Victor's Musings
Making Space for Halloween by Nic Paton

Article at Next Wave Ezine

2007-10-23T16:12:00.000-06:00

I have a new article up in this month's issue of the Next Wave Ezine called Welcoming the Awakened Woman. Go check it out and leave comments if you want. (And yes, for those who are wondering, I do see the irony of this article written and submitted weeks ago appearing right now given other recent conversations.)

My Mere Existence

2007-10-23T15:55:00.000-06:00

So I seem to be inadvertently pissing people off with whatever I say recently. I basically can't seem to do anything right. apparently just the mere fact of my existence is enough to anger others. To take a silly example that can't get me in more trouble since they hate me so much anyway - one of those "we think people in the emerging church are poopy-heads" sites came across my summary of the Emerging Women lunch at the Emergent Gathering. You know the lunch where we all sat around and told our stories. Really evil stuff there. Well this anti-emergent site wrote, "Here is just another reason to stay away from the emergent church.It is one sad day when "Christian" women and "men who support ‘emerging Christian women’" start sitting around re-imagining God in their own image so easily." What exactly is their issue this time? That we host mixed gender lunches? That men would ever condescend to support women? That we talk about God? I don't get it. The best part were the labels used for their post which included - abomination, feminism in the church, false teachings, and heresy. Wow I always wanted to be classified as an abomination.

Then my lunch today seemed to solidify the fact that I offend people with my mere existence. Emma and I were out running errands and stopped to have lunch at her favorite place Noodles & Company (this was mommy's apology for making her get a shot at the doctors). The lunch started out amusing. Emma had just had a haircut at one of those places that make it all cute afterwards. So with pigtails with ribbons we went into lunch. Usually Emma gets mistaken for a boy (even when she is wearing pink clothing with hearts all over it), but today nearly everyone in the restaurant commented on what a cute little girl I had. I was thoroughly amused by how the girly pigtails (as opposed to her usually disheveled moptop) changed people's perception of her. But anyway, back to the main story...

I ordered my food and went and sat down. The restaurant was crowded and so I was glad to find a table. Shortly after I arrived a businessman and businesswomen sat down next to me. The man was very loud in his complaining about having to sit this close to a toddler (apparently he didn't think Emma was cute). I'm sorry but if you don't want to be exposed to kids don't go to fast food places that serve mac n' cheese. I also got to listen to him berate the restaurant for using such an inefficient serving system, make fun of people whose houses he was working on foreclosing, and talk about why he hates Japanese people. The women never said a word, I doubt she could get a word in edgewise. I did my best to ignore his complaining and his death glares at me for having the audacity to have a child and be sitting already at a table near where he wanted to sit and eat.

But speaking of the actual food. I ordered our food and sat waiting for it to arrive. After waiting for awhile I noticed that all the people who came in after me had already been served. I asked the server about that. She checked and told me they had just skipped over my order. She brought out Emma's food and told me mine was still cooking. After a while I see other people getting the same dish I ordered so I decided to ask again. That really pissed the server off. How dare I want to actually get my food. She then walked over to the cook asked him a question, he immediately threw together my food and she shoved it at me. Things were not going well. First people don't want to sit anywhere near me then the restaurant doesn't want to serve me. Great.

So I start eating my lunch. By now Emma is finished and is getting squirmy. I am spending most of my time leaning over to pick up stuff she is dropping on the floor. At this point I am just trying to finish eating so we can leave. This is when the seriously obese women at the table behind me gets up and leans over to tell me that I need to pull my shirt down. It has ridden up and my back is exposed which is offensive she tells me. Have I ever mentioned how much I hate the modesty police? I couldn't even respond to her, I just stared at her until she walked away.

I think my mere existence pisses people off. No matter what I say, people get mad. And now apparently just taking up space in this world is an affront to others. Yes, I know this is an overreaction, but there are just days when I am really tired of all this crap.

He with the Loudest Voice Wins

2007-10-22T15:36:00.000-06:00

Forget "come let us reason together." Forget "love wins." These days it feels like whoever has the loudest voice wins. I know that sounds really cynical but I'm getting tired of being drowned out by those voice. Let me explain.

We do church differently at our church - call it emerging or postmodern if you like. We don't (generally) preach at people, but instead attempt to engage people in discussion and reflection. This works really well for people who are used to us or who have an bit of an intellectual bent. But occasionally we get people who show up who after listening to part of the conversation say something like "But Joel Osteen says _____". That's the end of the discussion for them. Joel Osteen has a TV show so therefore his voice being the loudest and most prominent is correct. So if we are talking about self-sacrificially serving others based on texts from Luke, but Joel Osteen said that we can have it all if we just have faith, Joel Osteen must be right. There is no interacting with the issue, no trying to determine which message holds the truth, just allegiance with the guy with the loud voice.

Then there are the issues with the radio preachers (as the Out of Ur blog recently discussed). These guys can say whatever they want and because it is Christian radio people believe them as Gospel truth. It doesn't matter if your church preaches one thing on Sunday, if the people in your church listen to Christian radio they will believe the radio guys' over you. If they are on the radio they have the loud voice and therefore must be right. So if you are say in the emerging church, but the radio preachers tell their listeners that the emerging church is a cult where they sacrifice children and have sex with Satan (or something similar) they will believe the radio guys and condemn you to hell. No honest intelligent dialogue. No pursuit of truth. Just automatic default to whatever the guys with the loudest voice are saying.

I've personally experienced this phenomenon in a women's Bible study I was in a few years ago (which yes was just as painful as it sounds). Not much deep engagement went on at this thing. Our discussions involved reading whatever answer we filled in the Beth Moore blank with or occasionally reading the study notes from the NIV. Any attempts to push the conversation further were met with confused looks of "that wasn't in the book." One week our topic was on Rahab, and I was determined to bring up the alternative view that perhaps she wasn't a prostitute. Before I could one of the other ladies chose to read from Liz Curtis Higgs' Bad Girls of the Bible on Rahab. Essentially the passage claimed that Rahab has to be a prostitute because she represents our potential to be saved from the baseness of our sexual nature as women and if you question her role as a prostitute you are unbiblical and challenging the saving work of Christ. Which of course I disagreed with even more. At the risk of being labelled unbiblical (which I eventually was at that church) I tried to speak up and was immediately shut down. Who was I to question Liz Curtis Higgs the others asked? She's the expert on bad girls of the bible, you can't question the expert. So faithful exploration and biblical study don't matter in the face of a loud voice.

The "loud" voices, the ones with clout, are considered more believable because they are prominent and reach a wider audience. As we in the emerging church attempt to rethink patterns of theology we run up against these loud voices. They don't engage us in dialogue or a willingness to learn. Instead they ridicule, spread rumors and lies, and inoculate themselves against feedback by screening their calls and emails and deleting negative (or just basically insightful) comments on their blogs (if they allowed them in the first place). I guess it's hard to remain a loud voice if you don't just shut out all other voices.

So what do we do with this? People are allowed their own opinions, and I can ignore individuals who make fun of what I am a part of, but what about my family and friends who believe lies about me because of a few loud voices? Or who at least write me off for things I truly believe because they have been exposed to a bad representation of those things? Or what about those of us who have lost jobs because of the loud voice of others? How can we encourage church members and friends to actually think for themselves instead of swallowing whatever the loud voices tell them to believe? How can we do this without getting too cynical?

In this Week's News

2007-10-21T17:45:00.000-06:00

News stories I had to click on -

J.K. Rowling outs Dumbledore as Gay
Interesting. No big surprise. I found this paragraph sad - "But [Rowling] added that not everyone likes her work. Christian groups have alleged the books promote witchcraft. The author said her revelation about Dumbledore would give them one more reason." Once again Christians make the news for our hatred record instead of for our love.

and

Monkeys Kill Delhi Deputy Mayor
"The deputy mayor of the Indian capital Delhi died on Sunday after being attacked by a horde of wild monkeys." WTF? Wild Monkeys? Apparently these terrorizing monkeys are seen as a representation of a god and so cannot be harmed.

Missional Failure

2007-10-20T22:40:00.001-06:00

I stumbled across this funny yet challenging post by Lainie Petersen (whose blog I will be checking out now). I'm posting it here because I think it's great, but you can find the original here.

Top Ten Ways to Fail at Being Missional

10. Be very annoyed that some people belong to religions other than your own. Express this annoyance freely.

9. Don’t bother becoming a “regular” at local businesses. Just shop/dine/get- your-clothes-drycleaned at whatever place has the best sales that week. If, by some unfortunate coincidence, you do become a regular at a local business, don’t get to know the owner, employees, or other patrons.

8. Fixate on the quality of your missional targets: Focus on the local Unitarian Universalist minister, Mormon bishop, and Wiccan high priestess (who also owns your town’s only occult bookstore). Don’t give a second thought to that rather ordinary looking lady who you see every morning on the train. She doesn’t have a large enough sphere of influence.

7. If you see a problem in your community, don’t bother to check out what other organizations or individuals are doing about it. Just start your own project: You’ll get a lot more accomplished if you are in charge!

6. Don’t waste your time reading the blogs of other missional folk. So what if they share their own struggles, hurts, joys, and ideas freely? You take all your instruction from God, directly.

5. Never, ever, check out primary source materials produced by representatives of other cultures, subcultures, and religions. Christians have already written all you need to know about those unbelievers, and besides, cult members will have a bias that you want to avoid.

4. Avoid being “unequally yoked” with unbelievers by not engaging them in conversation, learning about their families, having lunch with them, inviting them to your home (or accepting a similar invitation), or working together to address community issues of common interest.

3. Be sure to email (from your work account, while at work) your “unsaved” work colleagues (especially those that you don’t normally interact with) with regular invitations to your church and its activities.

2. Never consider offering financial or material support to other folks engaged in missional work. After all, you need all your spare cash for your own personal ministry. Besides, most of them don’t have their own 501 (c) 3 corporation, and not getting a tax deduction would be poor stewardship on your part.

1. Learn every evangelistic technique, theory, and strategy out there, and work hard to perfect your practice of them, even to the neglect of every other area of your spiritual life. What does the Holy Spirit have to do with drawing people to God, anyway?

Book Review - Inspiration and Incarnation

2007-10-19T09:41:00.000-06:00

I just finished reading a book that I highly recommend for others to read. Not because I agreed with everything in it or because it is necessarily spiritually transformative, but because it presents a constructive, faith affirming approach to a topic that is generally written about in destructive ways.

A few months ago Scot McKnight recommended to me Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. This book explores some of the difficult questions regarding cultural influences on the Bible, the diversity of theological views present in it, and whether or not it is necessarily unique. These are not new questions and have been bantered around the academic world for some time now, but most lay accessible books on these ideas take one of two negative approaches. They either present these cultural and historical facts in order to prove that the Bible is not to be trusted and that therefore Christian faith is misguided. Or the books are written from a defensive standpoint in order to generally deny the validity of the historical facts so as to prove the Bible trustworthy. These agendas on both extreme are lacking for the reader who is not persuaded to give up either her faith or her intellect.

Peter Enns' book takes a third way in its approach to the conversation. It apologetically assumes an evangelical faith in scripture from the outset and then sets out to explore the historical details in light of that faith. On this approach, the author writes -

The way we can begin to address this issue is to confess at the outset, along with the historic Christian church, that the Bible is the word of God. That is our starting point, a confession of faith, not creating a standard of what the Bible should look like and then assessing the Bible on the basis of that standard. If we begin with the confession that the Bible is God's word, that it ultimately comes from him, that it is what the Spirit of God wanted it to be, that there is no place in all the messiness of the Old Testament where God says, "Oops, I didn't really mean to put it that way - I'd like to try again, please" - if we begin there, we have the freedom to look honestly and deeply at what God is doing in the Bible." p108

I appreciate that perspective. Instead of pretending to be objective in trying to prove one's agenda, I appreciate knowing the author admits the particular lens he is using to view the Bible. It isn't the only approach out there, but I found it refreshing as it led to an exploration of scripture that didn't create a false hierarchy between scripture and history. It is that acceptance of an interpretive tradition and embracing of one's cultural context that I've found lacking in most evangelical treatments of this subject.

Enns places the Bible and modern evangelicals firmly in their historical settings. About the Bible he writes, "It was not an abstract, otherworldly book, dropped out of heaven. It was connected to and therefore spoke to those ancient cultures." p.17 and "That the Bible, at every turn, shows how 'connected' it is to its own world is a necessary consequence of God incarnating himself"p20. The issues arise when both conservatives and liberals approach the Bible expecting it to be something it is not. When we desire for the Bible to speak only to the issues of a modern scientific society we display our arrogance in assuming that we are the only one's God has ever cared about conveying his word to.

The book then presents three issues that have generally not been handled well in evangelical theology. First it explores why the Bible looks so much like other Ancient Near East literature. Then it looks at the theological diversity present within the Bible itself. And finally it looks the sometimes weird (and generally out of context) ways in which the New Testament authors make use of the interpretive traditions of their day to interpret the Old Testament. Basically, is the Bible really unique, does it have integrity, and how should it be interpreted? Each discussion is fascinating and is helpful in that it is very open about the difficult parts of scripture. The result is a unique perspective that sees the Bible as the inspired word of God, but that embraces its very human and cultural elements as God's incarnation to us. We can therefore appreciate its diversity instead of deny it and allow the Bible to be what it is instead of what we wish it would be. So if these are issues you have ever struggled with or are just mildly curious about, I highly recommend this book as an easy, informed, and faith-affirming approach to the subject.

Garden Harvest

2007-10-18T19:13:00.000-06:00

Maybe I just don't know much about gardening (which is true), but it seems strange to me that I'm still getting produce from my garden in mid-October in Illinois. And it's not just the winter squash either. I'm still picking chard, tomatoes, peppers, and summer squash. I'm not complaining about the food, I made a really yummy chili tonight with those tomatoes and peppers. But mid-October? We usually have our first snow by now.

Switching Blogs?

2007-10-18T08:47:00.001-06:00

So I've been toying with the idea of switching my blog to Wordpress. I really like the cleaner look of Wordpress and (especially) that you can have different pages within the blog. But I'm not too keen on having to pay money for the ability to do anything interesting with my template or for decent storage. Plus in switching blogs I would loose all the links and stats here. It's a hard call.

So what do you think? Is it worth it to switch blogs? Is it just a stupid idea?

Christians Don't Care about Justice

2007-10-17T16:29:00.000-06:00

I was browsing Amazon earlier and stumbled upon John Perkins' new book With Justice for All: A Strategy for Community Development. This is the John Perkins who help co-found the Christian Community Development Association, but apparently Amazon has got him confused with another John Perkins (not a Christian) who also promotes justice issues. Now I haven't read the book yet, but the description sounds interesting - With Justice for All is Perkins s invitation to live out the gospel in a way that brings good news to the poor and liberty to the oppressed (from Luke 4:18). This invitation is extended to every racial and ethnic group to be reconciled to one another, to work together to make our land all God wants it to be. And it is a blueprint a practical strategy for the work of biblical justice in our time.

But apparently the Amazon mix-up has really pissed a few people off. While that is somewhat understandable, what I found to be really intriguing are how the disgruntleds' comments convey negative cultural perceptions of Christianity. For example, they write -

I saw the email from Amazon encouraging me to buy at a discount the "latest" book from John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and other fantastic eye opening books. If he had, instead of a book that preaches about how Christianity and the Churches of Christ will be our Saviour, it would have been a fantastic book about how we as people in our local communities need to take care of our communities through active involvement in buying sustainably grown and produced products, avoiding purchasing from the various corporate entities like WalMart etc. and manufacturers that have products produced by sweatshops and to instead reduce consumption and to care for one another in our communities with local action. Guess if anybody doesn't figure out that this book is NOT from the John Perkins who we all know and love, that this book will be a big disappointment and extremely confusing.

and

The John Perkins we all know and love is the one who confessed his sins to mankind. this other guy, whoever he is, sounds alright i guess, but being Christian, it is doubtful he is really truly interested in the betterment of mankind.

Yes, yes I know they should have taken the time to discover this John Perkins' beliefs and perspectives before they dismissed the book as generally being anti-justice. But their gut reaction was that it could not be about helping people or doing justice because it is Christian. That is disturbing. So even though certain people are claiming that we don't need to talk about biblical justice because all people are decent and support justice anyway, this perception (which is the true reality) begs to differ. Not that I was planning on stopping talking about justice issues, just that the implications are bigger than I thought.

What is a Christian Feminist?

2007-10-17T11:26:00.000-06:00

A couple of weeks ago a friend sent me a link to a blog where a fundamentalist woman was posting about a woman's true place in a biblical worldview. Her thoughts went beyond complementarian to the "women exist to serve men in the home by popping out babies" extreme. Apparently women can't think, can't question, and can never ever seek equality because God forbids it. In the comments it was concluded that feminism was created by Satan and that the term Christian Feminist is an oxymoron because according to God, they just can't exist. While I was amused by the idea that according to God I have no ontological reality (and yes, I know she meant that if one is a feminist one obviously can't be saved), it was still disturbing to hear women parroting the propaganda of oppression. I know it is her belief system and that it has meaning for her, but the fact that she isn't allowed to encounter different viewpoints is indicative of the reality for too many women in the church.

So why am I bringing this up? Geoff over at Amateur Theology has asked a genuine question as to what is a Christian Feminist. He writes, "It sounds from the implication of the title that I’m having trouble reconciling Christianity with feminism. The truth, I’m afraid is that I’m far more ignorant than that. I just don’t have a solid grasp on a) what feminism really means in the here and now, and b) how that interplays with people’s faith."

Makeesha has provided a great response and the comments there have sparked some good exploration of the term "feminist". I'll include here my contribution to the comments.

Feminist is a hard word because it is usually used as a negative label that is applied as a means to ridicule and dismiss. I’ve been in groups where generally open minded people actually say things like “well, I don’t think anyone here would go so far as to call themselves a feminist…” As if being a feminist is the most extreme out there thing one can be.

I do understand that there are various streams/waves of feminism and while I have serious issues with some of them (the ones that hate men or think that sexual openness means equality), I am not willing to give up the entire history of the movement because of some fringe views (kinda like I feel about Christianity). I am a feminist because I am a Christian. I believe all people are created in the image of God and are therefore worthy as imagebearers. We are all called to serve God in the ways we are called (in ministry, work, the home, school…) and to say otherwise is to stifle the will of God. Since it has been women who have generally been seen as inferior, I think feminism is necessary to overcome that lie.

In many ways, I would rather be a “peopleist” and work for all people to be allowed to be the people God made them to be. Men and women should not be fit into the molds of gender stereotypes and should be respected for who they are. But I think the goals of feminism still have a long way to go to just get basic respect for women established.

I know I've posted this graphic before, but I think it represents the historical tradition of feminism that I respect. There has been much achieved by the strong women who put it all on the line to get basic rights for women. Basic rights that as a Christian who loves God and respects how he created people I don't understand how they could be denied. But denied they have been along with much more. I recently re-read Virginia Woolf's classic A Room of One's Own and was shocked at how little has changed in the past 80 years for women. We still have loud and powerful men asserting that they know women are inferior and detailing for us all that we are good for in this world. Our voice is still not heard in many circles, especially in the church. And it is still a struggle to get the average person to acknowledge that these issues even matter. For many out there there just seem to be way more important things to care about than how women are perceived and treated. I think there are a lot of things that should be more important, but getting basic decency, rights, and respect for women seems fairly important to me.

So I am a feminist. I think women are people too. I think we are worthy of respect and human rights. I think God is big enough to use whoever he wants to serve him. And I will stand up with feminists against those who out of fear or hatred try to tell God otherwise.

Prejudices, Country Music, and Cat Blogging

2007-10-16T09:55:00.000-06:00

No matter how hard I try to be open and tolerant of others I still find myself slipping into believing my silly prejudices. There are just areas in life where I assume the stereotypes and start judging those I don't like or who are different. Now I'm sure there are numerous prejudices that I am unaware of that I will have to confront and get over at some point, but then there are those that I am fully aware of and still have a hard time accepting.

For example. Shortly after we started dating, I discovered that Mike listened to country music. That was nearly a deal breaker for me. Country music?! I honestly couldn't imagine any intellectual person listening to it. I had to get over that and eventually the Shania craze won me over for a brief period (until the post-9/11 let's stick boots up other country's asses songs started dominating the airwaves).

Then there are the issues I have with "Ss." No, not the letter of the alphabet, I'm talking about "S" versus "N" on the Myers-Briggs Personality tests. Sensing verses Intuitive. People who prefer to focus on the basic information they take in instead of preferring to interpret and add meaning to the world they encounter. I always test completely "N" and it has been a long struggle for me to get along with the "S" crowd. We just see the world and interact with it in very different ways. But it's getting better. Really.

But now it's something new that I've discovered I hold deep prejudices against. Cat bloggers. Yes, those people who devote large spaces of their blog to posting picture of cats (their's or other people's). There is a part of me that just wants to brush them aside as "crazy cat ladies" who have migrated to the technological era. But significant numbers of the cat bloggers I encounter are people who I seriously respect. People who are highly intelligent, good writers, and, given the sorts of blogs I read, articulate theologians. But they are cat bloggers on the side. There was actually a period of time when I refused to read a person's blog if I discovered that she cat blogged. I think I am attempting to be more open, but I still harbor negative stereotypes about cat bloggers. So in an effort to confront my fears and prejudices I am going to post a picture of a cat. For one day I will join the official ranks of cat bloggers and move towards shedding my prejudices. So here we go - cat blogging at onehandclapping -

Blog Action Day - The Environment

2007-10-15T09:02:00.001-06:00

Today is Blog Action Day for the environment. The idea is to get bloggers all blogging about a single topic (this year the environment) to help raise awareness and funds for that issue. Part of it is to donate the proceeds from your blog that day to the cause, but I guess that would assume you get proceeds from your blog to begin with. Nevertheless, I decided to add my voice and join in.

In some ways I really don't get why we still need to raise awareness for environmental issues. It just seems like a no-brainer - do what we can to take care of the planet. Al Gore just won the freaking Noble Peace Prize for crying out loud. But then I step back into reality. Even beyond those who think global warming is a hoax (and they are out there, in droves) and those who think it is our God-given right to destroy the environment (shockingly too many of those out there too), the bigger problem comes from those who just don't care enough to do crap. Sure they don't want the world destroyed, they like the idea of swimming in the ocean, and they aren't too eager to get cancer - but none of that is motivation enough for them to change the way they live. Convenience, cheapness, and sheer laziness win out over conviction any day.

Which is why I really appreciated the call in the Emerging Church to live holistically and put our beliefs into action. Makeesha just posted a reaction to the recent Emergent Gathering in which she debunked and affirmed popular stereotypes of the emerging church. One stereotype she affirmed is the "hippie" vibe one finds at such gatherings. She writes, "all you had to do was step into the room with the food and notice the almond butter, gluten free granola, sprouted bagels, quinoa salad and organic fruit." Our food was healthy and organic. Sure that gets us labeled "hippie" but I see in that a true commitment to the values of the Kingdom.

For many of us in the emerging church, our faith isn't just a set of beliefs we affirm by talking endlessly about how blessed we are to have them and by singing songs about why they make us so happy. It is instead a commitment of our whole life to living in the way of Christ. And that includes the areas of how we eat, shop, and treat the environment. If we care for the poor and the oppressed we are not going to buy food from systems that keep them in poverty or that expose them to unhealthy working conditions. If we care for God's creation we are not going to buy food that dumps poisons into the environment or is unsustainably grown. If we care for our bodies (as temples of the Holy Spirit) we aren't going to fill them with chemicals and high fructose corn syrup. Living holistically as followers of Christ changes that.

So call me a hippie. Call me a freak. Call me emergent. I am just trying to follow Christ.

And yes that means I care about the environment.

Podcast

2007-10-14T14:05:00.000-06:00

If anyone is interested, I am on the latest Nick & Josh Podcast. I haven't listened to the finished version yet, but I think (hope) I was vaguely coherent for it. I talk mostly about Emerging Women and some of the issues women face in entering into the whole emerging church conversation. I'm sure I ramble on at points, but I had fun doing it. So thanks guys for the opportunity.

10-20-30 Virus

2007-10-14T14:00:00.000-06:00

So Sonja tagged me for a really fun meme. A six degrees of separation/where were you sort of thing. It looks fun, so I'll play.

The question is - What were you doing ten, twenty and thirty years ago? Or as it was described -

It’s an experiment to see how many degrees we can separate (kind of like Kevin Bacon, only it’s relevantblog). Even if you’re not tagged, don’t be crabby, just take up the baton and run with it. Here’s what I ask: Have folks post their 10-20-30s, and then link back to the Mother Ship (www.relevantblog.blogspot.com) or write a comment here, saying where you heard about this experiment and sharing where you blog. This isn’t to build my empire, it’s to find out how far we can expand the blogosphere. After all this talk about blog tours, it got me thinking. How many people can one blog potentially reach?

So here's my story...

Ten Years Ago (Oct. 1997) I had just begun my sophomore year at Wheaton College in Illinois. I had really not wanted to return to Wheaton that year, wanting instead to stay home and go to UT in Austin. But I went and had the craziest semester ever. I was taking something like 21 hours and literally had days when I started classes at 7AM and did not have a break until I was done at 10PM. It was nuts. But this was the semester when my entire worldview started to change. As I explained it to the guy (not Mike) I had a huge crush on at the time (who told me later he never asked me out because he thought I was a lesbian - long story), my Romantic/Platonic understanding of the world was falling apart and I didn't know how to piece it back together. He, who already understood the implications of postmodern continental philosophy, just told me that was a good thing. Let's just say I took a lot of comfort in reading the visceral modern poetry of T.S. Eliot at the time and spent hours embroidering my jeans with deeply meaningful lines from my favorite poems. Um, yeah.

Twenty Years Ago (Oct. 1987) I was in 4th grade at Martha Turner Reilly Elementary School in Dallas Texas. I had decided in third grade that I wanted to be a writer, so I spent much of my free time writing plays and stories - usually based on whatever I was learning in school at the time. I remember one story was a mystery about a group of kids who were kidnapped and had to use the Pythagorean Theorem to help them escape. Another play was about someone traveling back in time with a nuclear bomb and helping the South win the Civil War. Really good stuff there. I attended a very conservative large non-denominational church in Dallas (Northwest Bible church) and thought that people who didn't go to my church weren't Christians.

Thirty Years Ago (Oct. 1977) Well my mom was 7 months pregnant with me (yes I am turning 30 in a couple of months). So there's not a whole lot I can say about this period. We were in Dallas, I was the firstborn in the family, they considered naming me Barbie...

Now. Oct. 2007. I am a church planting pastor in the Chicago suburbs. I am very involved in the emerging church conversation and enjoy learning more everyday. I'm a mom to a 2 year old. Fun times.

So where were you? If you are reading this, consider yourself tagged. Just let me know if you play!

The Bible

2007-10-13T14:41:00.000-06:00

I liked this poster. Maybe because I've worked my way through too many IKEA manuals. Maybe because I'm sick of people trying to make an ancient near-eastern document fit into modern and postmodern categories of knowledge. But there are days when I want to do some serious bible banging on those who seem to think its a step by step instruction manual for life. Have you ever even read it? (ht to Eileen)

Objectifying Men

2007-10-12T12:01:00.000-06:00

Gender rant to follow.

So I don't hide the fact that I own the label "feminist." I know that in many circles feminist is the "f-word" and those who use it despised. And yes, I know that there are different waves and types of feminists. I get that. It's complicated.

And I also get that one of the reasons feminism is so despised is because some feminists have exchanged misogyny for misandry. Instead of seeking equality of the sexes or even (the preferred imho) respect for all peoples, they promote women as better than men or seek to ridicule, deride, and humiliate men. For the record, I don't support that sort of feminism. Anything that is based on hurting others in the name of selfish ambition is wrong. No question there.

But.

Sometimes I do wonder if the whole "walk a mile in another's shoe" approach might be helpful. For some men it might just take being treated in the way they treat women for the message of equality to get across to them. And I'm not just talking about being the minority at events, getting talked over in conversations or having to wear the prosthetic pregnant belly either. I'm talking about the subtle (sometimes) sexual objectification of women. What if when a women got up to speak at an event, her husband was introduced only in reference to his physical appearance? And I thank Mike, my handsome and sexy husband for his support in being here with me tonight.... Or what if after a man preached, the congregants focused not on the content of his sermon but on the fact that his shirt really wasn't a good color for him? Or how about expressing surprise that a well known women could manage to find such an attractive and intelligent husband? Could we try that for awhile? Do you think it would make a difference (or just backfire and feed the male ego?)

I guess I'm just sick of the references to women that while intending to be complements just continue to objectify and oppress us. It is not a novel thing that a woman is intelligent. And I know I am not a "beautiful" person, so it gets really demeaning when that is how I am referred to - did the person even bother to get to know me or did they just go with the old standby of commenting on a woman's body? Do men really not get how belittling that can be? So I just think it could be a fun experiment to turn things around and treat men the way they treat us. Even if it doesn't change things, it could still be interesting. A science experiment perhaps.

(and yes, in case you were wondering, listening to Gwen Stefani's 'Hollaback Girl' prompted this post. shake them bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S....)

Green Halloween

2007-10-11T15:52:00.000-06:00

So I find myself wondering what to do about Halloween this year. No, not the typical Christian "should I celebrate it or not?" dilemma (more on this on a couple of weeks), but more of a quandary as to what sort of candy to hand out. Unless you are an evil grinch (or a fundamentalist Christian) you give out candy at Halloween. It's the one night of the year when you are guaranteed to actually meet your neighbors as people get pulled out of the safety of their suburban fortresses by the munchkins dressed as pirates, superheros, and the cast of High School Musical. So I can't not give out candy.

But I'm facing an ethical dilemma. What do I give? I refuse to support human trafficking and child slavery by buying chocolate from one of the big name distributors. And as the buzz around the new documentary The Price of Sugar raises awareness of slave conditions inflicted on Haitians in the production of our sugar, I don't want to just go with pure sugar stuff either (and of course trying to avoid high fructose corn syrup as well). I mean, just a few days before Halloween I will be attending a fundraising banquet for relief work in Haiti, how can I then turn around and support systems that cause poverty and oppression in Haiti? It would be easier to be a hypocrite, but that's not sitting well with me. So that means I need to find fairly traded organic Halloween candy to give out this year.

So once again I set out on a quest to discover if I can engage ethically in my consumption. I go to Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Fruitful Yield. I even look at my local grocery story that just recently made a big deal about the new half aisle of organic stuff they put in. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Oh, Whole Foods had nice autumn boxes of 6 truffles for $7 and Trader Joe's carries the new chocolate larabar for $1.50 each (super yummy btw), but no bags of individually wrapped easily distributable Halloween candy. I had a bit better luck at Fruitful Yield, they at least carried candy, but not in bulk. I would have to buy each piece individually (at their insane mark-up) if I wanted candy from them. Sorry, but the budget can't handle that.

Halloween is a $2 Billion dollar a year industry for candy and the average household spends around $17 each year on the candy supply to give out. To break it down - each piece of mini brand name candy costs you between 8-13 cents and the "fun size" pieces are between 20-30 cents each. Depending on the size of your neighborhood, that adds up. Given that the cheapest stuff I found in my search was $.50, I realized that attempting to have an ethical and green Halloween could really cost me. So having no luck visiting actual stores (although on an unrelated note I discovered that Whole Foods carries Shiner beer, in Illinois - much happiness there) I turned to the ever faithful internet.

Thanks to the groundwork done by the wonderful Candy Blog and green LA girl I found what I was looking for. While there doesn't appear to be loads of options out there, there are some pretty good choices available. Apparently Global Exchange carries an entire Fair Trade Halloween Kit full of candy, decor, and info postcards. Pretty spiffy. I'm also a fan of their fair trade gold coins which will go well with the pirate theme Emma is insisting upon this year. Also available are Endangered Species Bug Bites. These mini-chocolate bars come in milk and dark chocolate varieties and are high on the yummy scale. I let Emma try one and asked if if she thought other kids would like them. She said, "no, just Emma, I eat them all." We're working on the sharing thing. Plus each piece comes with a bug trading card which I think are rather fun. If you are looking to avoid chocolate altogether, Yummy Earth carries organic lollipops and hard candy in a variety of interesting flavors (watermelon, pomegranate...). But you have to get orders in now to guarantee delivery by Halloween.

So all of this stuff sounds good to me and are things I can buy without feeling like a hypocrite. I guess the real test will be if the kids like them. But then again, if they don't, I'll at least be contributing to the ever necessary "parent's stash." So here's to a green (and ethical) Halloween. Now we shall just see how my attempts to create organic whole wheat pumpkin muffins go over...

Conquistadors and Peace

2007-10-10T17:14:00.000-06:00

When I was in Santa Fe last week, we spent one afternoon doing the tourist thing. As we wandered around the city, we paid a visit to the Cathedral. Apparently the most famous relic in the Cathedral is a statue of Mary. I was a bit puzzled when I saw the sign that gave its name. All the signs there are written in both Spanish and English so I wasn't surprised to see two names in those two languages listed. But I was surprised to read "La Conquistadora" and "Our Lady of Peace." Last time I checked "conquistador" meant "conqueror" and not "peacemaker." Obviously this wasn't a matter of direct translation. So I decided to read up on the story. What follows is a very brief, cut and pasted history of the statue and Santa Fe.

The City of Santa Fe was originally occupied by a number of Pueblo Indian villages with founding dates between 1050 to 1150. The "Kingdom of New Mexico" was first claimed for the Spanish Crown by the conquistador don Francisco Vasques de Coronado in 1540. Spanish colonists first settled in northern New Mexico in 1598.

During the next 70 years, Spanish soldiers and officials, as well as Franciscan missionaries, sought to subjugate and convert the Pueblo Indians of the region. The indigenous population at the time was close to 100,000 people, who spoke nine languages and lived in an estimated 70 pueblos.

In 1680, Pueblo Indians revolted against some 2,500 Spanish colonists, killing 400 of them and driving the rest back into Mexico. The conquering Pueblos sacked Santa Fe and burned most of the buildings. From those burning buildings, the Spanish rescued the oldest statue of Mary in America, brought to New Mexico in 1625. In "exile" De Vargas made a vow to Mary that they would enthrone her as their Queen back in the Cathedral of Santa Fe if she would permit their taking their former property without bloodshed. In trust the Spaniards returned. The Indians for an unknown reason withdrew from their stronghold and Governor Vargas entered Santa Fe without opposition. Within four months, 23 pueblos of 10 Indian nations had been conquered and 2,000 Indians converted without the loss of a single life. The Mary statue returned to Santa Fe and has since become a cultural icon.

Originally known as Our Lady of the Rosary or Our Lady of the Conquest, she is currently called Our Lady of Peace. She is best known as La Conquistadora.

So she's called "Our Lady of Peace" because the Spanish were able (the second time around) to kick the Indians off of their land without the use of violence. This symbol of dominion and empire is revered as a religious icon of peace. Wow. Is our faith still that messed up?

Peace as conquest that avoids bloodshed. That is what the Kingdom message of Jesus has been reduced to here. Imposing our wills onto others, taking away people's homes, and forcing them to abandon their culture is revered as peaceful. And apparently the whole town throws a big Fiesta each year in honor of this statue and all it symbolizes. (and don't get me started on the value of this 29-inch wooden Lady of "Peace's" extensive wardrobe...). If this is the understanding of peace that we promote - that which merely avoids bloodshed no wonder we are having such a hard time understanding the issues behind America's cultural domination of the world. We not only bring violence, but even our "peacekeeping" teams are conquerors and destroyers.

I think "peace" is a word that needs to be reclaimed. To be stripped from its associations with empire and dominion. To be returned to an active word that goes beyond passivity or just avoiding violence. Peace as working to restore relationships, peace as respecting others, peace as encouraging the oppressed. Peace as love not control.

Emergent Gathering Reflections

2007-10-09T10:17:00.000-06:00

That's where I was all last week - at the Lifeway Glorieta Conference Center situated in the mountains outside of Santa Fe. As strange as it is to attend an Emergent event at a Southern Baptist camp, it does make for a stunning setting. Emma enjoying pointing out the "real mountains" (a opposed to the sand mountains we climbed in Michigan). In all she had a wonderful time there which is a good thing since we were really unsure how doing this event as a family would work. This Gathering was the first Emergent event that I have done in "mommy mode" which of course created a new dynamic for me, but I discovered that it is actually doable. Having Emma there meant we both took a very relaxed approach to the event. There was no possibility of us making every workshop or late night option, so we just stepped back and enjoyed the community where we could. So instead of stressing out about being places and becoming overwhelmed with information, we ended up having fantastic conversations wherever we were at. Playing with kids at the playground or letting Emma collect rocks on the hill were all opportunities to connect with people. And I loved that most conversations jumped straight to deeper issues and richer topics. I think everyone there was desperate for a community, a tribe as some are calling it, where those conversations are possible and so we took advantage of them at every moment.

A few random highlights from the week for me -

- Like I mentioned before, attending a discussion of holistic emerging parenting. I am drawn to alternative parenting ideas and generally don't hold to the typical American style of parenting, but I've had a very hard time finding people to discuss those ideas with, much less learn from their experiences. The few I've found have not been involved in Christianity. So I've longed for other Christians to talk to who share my emerging journey and are exploring more holistic parenting ideas. Ideas that wrestle with spiritual formation of children outside of the assumed model of Sunday School or AWANA. Parents that see their children as people to be respected instead of pawns to be controlled. Parents who don't hit or scream at their children on principle (and definitely don't justify such things with the Bible). It was very refreshing to be in a group that cared about such things (men and women equally btw). We only had a short time at the Gathering to discuss such ideas, but I am in the process of creating an Emerging Parents blog to help continue that discussion.

- Hosting an Emerging women lunch where we got to hear each other's stories. Women are coming to this emerging discussion from such a wide variety of backgrounds and it is helpful to hear about those journeys. We heard the stories of pain, of questioning, of anger, and of hope. As always those discussions developed into longer conversations about the whole "women in Emergent" issue. I'll post more about those over at the Emerging Women blog later this week.

- Being involved in discussions about the future of Emergent Village and the role it will play. Will it be a place for newcomers to come with their pain and questions to work through new ideas or will it be pushing forward in developing practice and theology in our postmodern world? Mike has blogged about this issue here.

- Finally figuring out who/what The Cobalt Season is and realizing that their music is amazing (go buy their CD's right now). And it was also amusing to discover the um, interesting, relationship Ryan Sharp has to my brother...

- Taking Emma into Santa Fe and trying to teach her how to walk the labyrinth at the Cathedral. She made it through one circuit and the said "I just run," and ran to the middle. There's got to be some spiritual analogy in there somewhere...

- Hanging out with friends new and old. Finally meeting some online faces. And knowing that yes, there are people in this whole emerging community that I really can connect with and wishing we weren't scattered across the country.

- New Mexican food. Enough said.

And if you want to see some really good pictures from the Gathering click here.

Perceptions of Christians Meme

2007-10-08T17:02:00.000-06:00

Brother Maynard tagged me recently for a really interesting new meme (thanks for the tag btw). This one is based on the new book unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity... and Why It Matters. The book seems to be getting some buzz and sounds like a fascinating read. Making the point that in many ways America is becoming a post-Christian nation may help change the "business as usual" approach many have taken to faith, church, and politics.

Anyway, the meme jumps on this idea by asking us to list four things about Christians: three negative perceptions and one thing that Christians should be known for. I found it amusing at first because it reminded me of that old parenting technique of making a kid who has just said something mean or negative about someone then say something nice about them. That ploy always bugged me because it never addressed the validity of the negative statements and resulted in generic positives ("He's nice"). So I hope this will be neither, but will instead allow the negative perceptions to be better understood and the positives to be rightly appreciated. So for my additions to the meme...

Negative:

1. Christians are anti-intellectual. When Christians refuse to study science or history or whatever because they think it will contradict what they believe, they are not lauded for their faith but ridiculed for their rejection of basic reason and intelligence. Sure there are a lot of people out there who are afraid to encounter new ideas, but Christians make a really big deal about entrenching in ignorance. It doesn't inspire much confidence in those who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of truth.

2. Christians are manipulative. From TV preachers asking for money to the rock band creating a worship "experience" Christians are seen as being in the business of manipulating people to do what we want. We promise them health and wealth if they support our ministry. We create an emotional setting through music, lighting, and preaching that results in spiritual highs, encounters with God, and new commitments. That could just be the typical way you worship God each Sunday, but outsiders see that as manipulative, cheezy, and fake. They don't want to be conned into something false (especially if it involves money). Authenticity is even suspect because of the church's long history with manipulation.

3. Christians are selfish. Christians always want to get their way. They want their morals to rule, they want their prayers in schools, they want their holiday decorations displayed, they want their creation story taught, they want, they want, they want... Christians are not known for caring about the needs of others, just about getting their way. And when they use lawsuits and boycotts to get their way, they lose the right to claim to love and care for others.

Positive:

okay since love has already been taken by others, I'll go with...

1. Christians are passionate. Okay not in the physical sense, we still need to work on that, but in the caring deeply, being zealous sort of way. And yes, I know that this could be a scary perception for some, I think it is really a positive part of most Christians lives. Instead of being apathetic and not engaging with life or the world - Christian have a reason to care, and care passionately at that. We are passionate about God, about Jesus, about service, about worship, about truth, about love. Sure that causes issues and conflicts with others (and way too often amongst ourselves), but we care enough to be doing something. We are committed to what we believe and that counts for something. Now if we can just direct that passion into the things Jesus told us to be passionate about then we might start to change those negative perceptions.

So what are your thoughts? Are these perceptions real? Are they based in truth? How can they be altered into positives that truly reflect Jesus?

And I would love to hear from others who can add to the list. I specifically tag Makeesha and Sonja (if you want to play).

Home - briefly

2007-10-06T22:05:00.000-06:00

So I'm home from the Gathering, for a few hours at least. The past few days were full in every sense of the word. I don't think I've really slept in a week (I've decided that I officially cannot do the co-sleeping part of alternative parenting, just being in the same room as my toddler made nights rather sleepless...), but the setting and the conversations were refreshing nonetheless. I'll post some reflections soon after I've had time to collect my thoughts and settle into a relatively unscattered mode once again. But for now, I'm off again tomorrow to Oregon, IL to work at my booth at the Stronghold's Renaissance Faire. In costume. Don't ask. Really.

Anyway, I will attempt to return to regularly scheduled blog randomness on Monday.

Emergent Gathering

2007-10-03T16:52:00.001-06:00

Hi all. I'm in New Mexico at the Emergent Gathering having a fantastic time. I just went to a discussion on emerging holistic parenting which is something I've longed to discuss with other like-minded Christians for awhile now. So it was good. I'll post details when I get back. But the blog will be slow the next few days as I have fun.

How to Live Forever?

2007-10-01T22:10:00.000-06:00

If I remember right (and I am so not looking this up right now), at the start of The Republic when asked what he thought the perfect society looked liked, Socrates replied that a simple agrarian society would be the best and make people most happy. That answer was laughed at with a "no, tell us what you really think" sort of response. So Socrates went of to detail the Republic with all its oddities and set the stage for the stressful structured civilization we know and love.

Which is why I found this article so amusing. Apparently in Sardinia there exists a longevity hot spot where abnormally large percentages of people live past 100. "One out of every 200 people in Ogliastra has lived to celebrate a 100th birthday. It’s an extraordinary figure, about 50 times the rate of the United States, where only one person out of every 10,000 people lives to see 100." Interesting. Of course Westerners would love to know what their secret is to living this long. While there is no magic answer it seems like a life full of "low caloric intake, a diet high in vegetables, a lengthy, vigorous work life, lack of stress" are generally what does it for them. Basically the opposite of our modern lifestyle and generally what Socrates defined as the ideal society. Except that the people don't necessarily say they are happier for living that long. They are poor and life has been tough, very tough.

So the question is, would we be willing to give up life as we know it for the promise of really long life? It's hard enough to convince people of just the basic benefits of eating organically, much less a whole lifestyle like that. As the article mentioned, it is like one of those "would you rather" party game questions. "Would you rather live a decidedly shorter life in a world of 24/7 stress, but still be able eat foie gras, candy bars, and Big Macs whenever you wanted to? Or would you rather, say, live forever as a poor, illiterate sheepherder in an isolated mountain village where resources are scarce?" Or is there a way to claim both?

The Kingdom vs. Utopia

2007-09-30T21:43:00.000-06:00

Does believing in the mission that Christ gave us imply that one has liberal Utopian leanings or progressive delusions of grandeur? It's a question that I seem to encounter quite often these days. Generally the argument proceeds something like - all you emergent types are too tied to progressive liberal politics so therefore you think the government will save you and usher us into a perfect Utopian future (which is really a modern conception of progress anyway...). Or something similar along those lines. This is generally followed by some sermon on how we as Christians a should not corrupt ourselves (or the gospel) by getting involved in politics. Or at least about how we should only focus on trying to help those we have a personal relationship with - in our local community.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think the government can save us or bring about a perfect world. No one political party has all the answers or will automatically make this world a better place. But I don't think that is reason to just abandon politics or give up altogether. And (as I've mentioned before) I don't think working to bring God's Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven" can just be written off as the modern myth of progress either.

To take to heart Jesus' command to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" - would imply that one actually believes that it can be done. If we are following in the way of Christ, living out the Kingdom values, and teaching others about the things Jesus taught then part of the idea is that we are attempting to make this world a better place. If we follow in Jesus' footsteps to "preach good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom for the prisoners, and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" then we should be actively working for those things believing that God has the power to make them happen. So in seeking to feed the hungry, to heal those with AIDS, to stop sexual exploitation of children, and to end slave like conditions in the factories we are not just buying into liberal ideas of progress through science, we are following Christ's commands.

But apparently to think that any of that will actually work is wishful Utopian thinking. And to think that the government or technology might assist in bringing those things about is to place our faith for salvation in such organizations. At least, so I have heard. But I'm not buying it.

The world is broken - God's kingdom is not on earth as it is in heaven. And often it has been the very people who claim to follow Christ that have caused the brokenness. If there is something that can be done to bring healing and reconciliation to the World, is it not a good thing to do it? And if a big organization or a government (many of whom caused the problems to begin with) are in a position to help heal the ills of the world, why the hell would I not support that? Even Jesus when the disciples reported that they had seen a man driving out demons in his name said, "Do not stop him, for whoever is not against you is for you."

I don't think the government will save us or that they have all the answers. I don't think that the world will just get better and better because of the wonders of technology. I am not deluded into thinking that Utopia will just appear if enough people vote a certain way and start recycling. But I do believe in Jesus and the mission he has called us to. I do believe that as Christians we are expected to care for others and to stop the injustices in this world. And I have no problem using the government or technology to help make that happen if that is what it takes. The mission is bigger than the fear of being consumed by an secular agenda of progress. And if working to make Kingdom values a reality gets dismissed as an Utopian delusion, I really don't care. I'll just keep on following Jesus.

Apple Picking and Oktoberfest

2007-09-29T19:10:00.000-06:00

So while we are still wondering when Fall weather will arrive in the Midwest, this morning we participated in one of those quintessential Fall activities - apple picking. A group of us from church headed out to a local orchard and farm to wander through picking (and eating) apples. Emma thought it was great although I don't think she really caught on to what a "ripe" apple looked like. But she ate the green ones she picked, so whatever works.

Then this evening Yorkville held it's first annual Oktoberfest. It had advertised German music, German food, and German beer - so we decided it give it a go. We loaded Emma in the stroller and walked down to the riverfront to end up listening to an 80's cover band, drink Bud lite, and eat brats (but with sauerkraut instead of pickles - hence the German part). But 80's rock anthems work for Emma our "dancing queen" who had a fantastic time running around and meowing (yes, meowing) to the music. In all it was a fun day.

Banned Books Week

2007-09-29T00:11:00.000-06:00

So apparently this week (Sept 29 - Oct 6) is Banned Books Week. In light of the recent controversies surrounding the purging of religious books from prison libraries in the name of "security," the freedom to read is once again a significant issue. While I hope we are still a long way from government enforced book burning, the challenging and banning of books is still an ongoing problem. There is the occasional church that hosts a good old fashioned book burning - usually involving fantasy fiction such as Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, but the most controversy these days occurs in schools and libraries as certain interest groups attempt to get books removed. Apparently if a book has anything meaningful to say at all someone will disagree with it. But many people go beyond disagreement and assume that if they don't like something it has to be banned for everyone.

The list of frequently banned books can be surprising at times. With some, like Catcher in the Rye, I've heard about the controversy, but others just don't make any sense. A Wrinkle in Time? Where's Waldo???? How seeped in fear does one's life have to be to try to get books like those banned?

The reasons most commonly cited for challenging a book include -

* 1,607 were challenges to “sexually explicit” material;
* 1,427 to material considered to use “offensive language”;
* 1,256 to material considered “unsuited to age group”;
* 842 to material with an “occult theme or promoting the occult or Satanism,”;
* 737 to material considered to be “violent”;
* 515 to material with a homosexual theme or “promoting homosexuality,” and
* 419 to material “promoting a religious viewpoint.”

So if a book takes a realistic look at a real life issue it had better not contain sex, or violence, or offensive language or it will be challenged (i.e. real life had better not actually show real life). So much for depth of engagement or intellectual maturity, it's easier to just ban. And of course, the challenges are quite often led by Christians. They fear a word, or sex, or different belief system, or other culture, or imagination, or difficult life scenario and they move to prevent a book being read. It is not about understanding, or love, or respect, it is about getting their own way and imposing their belief system on others. On that issue, I found this quote from Judith Krug's article "Harry Potter and the Censor's Flame" interesting -

The campaign to keep the Harry Potter series out of the hands of children continues, led most recently by a Gwinnett County, Ga., mother who believes the series is an "evil" attempt to indoctrinate children in the Wicca religion. She wants to replace the books with others that promote a Judeo-Christian world view, like the "Left Behind" series. I believe, in fact, that what some parents and adults find most threatening about the Potter series is what engages young minds and fires the imagination of young people- Rowling's willingness to deal with the truth that adults in children's lives can sometimes be unthinking, authoritarian, and even evil. The best books always have raised questions about the status quo - and are the most threatening to censors who want to control what young persons read and think about. Like the tyrannical Defense Against Dark Arts Professor Dolores Umbridge, who insisted on providing a "risk-free" education to the young wizards at Hogwarts, they would limit education and information to facts so incontestable that they arouse no controversy at any level, thereby leaving young people unequipped to think about and address larger questions about the nature of our society.

A risk-free, unthinking life is a scary thing. Maybe that's what Christians want, maybe its what the government wants - mindless, unthinking, unreflective, uncaring drones who do whatever they are told without question. I don't know. Maybe someone should write a book about that - oh wait, they have and it's been banned...

So what's your favorite banned book?

My day yesterday...

2007-09-28T10:03:00.000-06:00

Yesterday was one of those days.

I found out rather last minute that I had space at a huge local craft fair that I was on the alternate list for. (Yes in my other life I make and sell raggy quilts). So we set up our tent and wares at the Sandwich Fairgrounds and I tried to sell my quilts to the 6000+ people that came through. The day turned instead to a "all things conspire against us" sort of day. To start with from about 6AM to noon it was FREEZING. I was in a skirt, sandals, and short sleeves and was miserable. Then right around noon, the sun came, the temperature rose about 40 degrees and we baked in the sun (while being swarmed by flies). So not what weather.com predicted.

And then I discovered (again) why I don't do rural craft fairs. It is a different world once one leaves the suburbs. The fashions and hairstyles are like a timewarp back to the early 1990s. You meet the fundamentalist Christians too. My partner, who sells handpainted plates with scripture on them, got an earful from a lady who praised her for using the KJV and not The Message. Apparently The Message is evil because "God doesn't paraphrase" and the KJV is like the Holy Spirit and is gentle with our souls. Um, sure, whatever. I just smile and nod. My issue is that the shoppers were more likely to be stay-at-home moms (or grandmas) with generous freetime on their hands (as opposed to the artificially frazzled suburban moms we generally see at these things). That freetime issue means less sales for us. Instead of people coming by our booth and actually say buying one of my quilts, I had a steady stream of women coming by my booth, crowding around my display, and giving each other sewing lessons on how to make that type of quilt. I've taught such classes before (for a fee) and I paid to have a booth at the fair so I could sell my stuff not so people could just copy my ideas. I usually get a handful of people doing that at any show, but at the rural shows it is a steady stream. So while, there is nothing wrong with rural areas or the people who live there, it just really isn't a good market for our stuff. Hence my need to capitalize on the suburban lifestyle (and yes I am fully aware of the irony of that statement).

Anyway, then I was supposed to pack up from the fair and drive out to the up/rooted panel discussion with Spencer Burke, Alan Hirsh and others. It's a good hour and a half drive up to Park Ridge when the traffic is normal. Well traffic was horrible. It took me close to 45 minutes to get from Sandwich to Yorkville - a drive that should take 10-15 minutes tops. There was no way I was making it to up/rooted before the whole thing was nearly over. So I picked Emma up from the babysitters and went home having had a rather frustrating day. Just thought I'd share.

Children and Health Care

2007-09-26T09:51:00.000-06:00

I've posted on the amazing photography of Chris Jordan before. Now he has a challenging piece up called "Building Blocks" which depicts nine million wooden ABC blocks, equal to the number of American children with no health insurance coverage in 2007. (HT - Justice and Compassion). It is a sobering thought and as always his visual representation drives home the enormity of the problem. As our President threatens to veto the bipartisan bill the House passed yesterday which would expand health care insurance for children, this number is even more frightening. As Bush said in a press conference recently, he believes that healthcare decisions are best made between a patient and their doctor, without government interference. As Jon Stewart so aptly pointed out on The Daily Show - these kids don't have doctors because they don't have health insurance. So Mr. President we await your giving the children of America the finger and pray you develop some semblance of a conscience instead.

[Grid::Blog::Horizon2107]

2007-09-25T17:14:00.000-06:00

I wanted add my thoughts to the Gridblog started by Bob Carlton on "what does the year 2107 look like from your vantage point." What to imagine? Should I be cynical or utopian? Will we be suffering from the environmental devastation of our planet or will we be on the road to sustainable living? What about war? Poverty? Religion? It was in looking back at what the world was like 100 years ago that helped me determine what to speculate about for the future.

Apparently, 100 years ago tomorrow New Zealand and Newfoundland became dominions of the British Empire (the step between being a colony and a Commonwealth). The word dominion dates back to at least the 17th century within the British Empire, referring generically to any British overseas possession. A country populated with indigenous people that another country has taken possession of and imposed their government, morals, and religion on. That's the exposure that other cultures were having to Christianity 100 years ago - a belief system forced upon them generally in ways that made them easy to control. It was the old mantra of "colonize, Christianize, and civilize." To be a Christian in those settings meant aligning oneself with the empire of oppression.

Not a whole lot has change in the past 100 years, but the past decade or so has seen the emergence of voices of those oppressed peoples. Voices that attempt to affirm the truth of Christianity apart from its marriage to colonial powers. And this Christianity in its attempts to set itself up as a countercultural alternative to Empire (gee, does that sound familiar?) is flourishing. So I wonder how this will play out 100 years from now. As Christianity assumes a local flavor in these autonomous countries briefly held as colonies and dominions, how will that change the global face of Christianity? Will the Western philosophies and theologies so central to our debates and arguments (Calvin anyone?) be usurped by local ethnic theologies? Will the numbers game naturally shift the power of Christianity from the Global North to the Global South?

For all the talk the emerging church does about rediscovering the fuller Gospel of the Kingdom (a good thing imho), I wonder if it is just setting the stage for the rise of the (soon to be?) formally marginalized voices. In this imagined future, the Church might actually have the potential to be a truly communal gathering of every tongue, tribe, and nation. A gathering that isn't built on patronizing attempts at domination, but mutual respect and love. That is the optimistic view of the future I want to see.

Rejection, Redemption, and Roots

2007-09-25T00:23:00.000-06:00

The topic for this month's SynchroBlog is Christianity and Paganism. I had a hard time narrowing down what I wanted to say about the topic because I've been struggling recently with the paradigms for how one interacts with other belief systems. So I decided to just write about that struggle and give my opinion of three of the most common approaches Christians have in interacting with Paganism. There are of course various other approaches and this is not at all an in depth (or coherent) look at any of these, just what has been floating through my head recently.

1. Rejection - This is the approach I grew up with and which I see displayed most commonly in Christian circles. The idea is that since the other cultures are not explicitly Christian, they cannot contain truth or that which is good and therefore must be rejected. Other cultures are devoid of God and are places of darkness. If we interact with those cultures we could be tainted or wooed into the darkness. This approach leads to such common cultural practices as banning books like Harry Potter, not participating in Halloween (and sometimes even Christmas), and freaking out about stuff like yoga. Growing up I wasn't allowed to read fantasy books (other than Narnia) and while we were allowed to go trick-or-treating, Halloween was downplayed and we often attended church Harvest Fests dressed as Bible characters. The yoga issue has recently come up once again in the conversation in the recent Pagitt/MacArthur interview on the subject. MacArthur summed up the whole rejection mindset with his statement, "Why would Christians want to borrow an expression from a false religion?" If there is nothing good there, no truth there - why bother interacting? They say the Christian response should be rejection and not embrace.

My issue with the rejection mentality is the limits it places on God. It claims that God can only work in a very small segment of the population and is not big enough to be found in other cultures and religions. But even the Bible shows that Christians can engage with other cultures and find truth there. Just take the Acts 17 account of Paul at Mars Hill to see that he quotes "pagan" philosophers as containing truth about God. So obviously if the Bible displays engagement as opposed to rejection, it cannot be the best approach to the issue. As C.S.Lewis wrote, "if you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all other religions are simply wrong all through ... you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of truth." This isn't about all religions being equally true, its about letting truth be truth wherever it is found. Which leads us to...

2. Redemption - For Christians who choose to see God's truth all around us, a common approach to interacting with other cultures and religions is to redeem the good that is in them. One lays claim to truth (or beauty or the good) in other cultures and "baptizes" it for Christian usage. This is a process that St. Augustine referred to as the Egyptian Gold principle. When the Israelites fled Egypt the Bible tells us they "plundered the Egyptians," taking much gold (in the form of idols) with them into the wilderness. The gold eventually came to be used in the Tabernacle - the very dwelling place of God. Its pagan associations were erased and it was redeemed for usage in worshiping God. This principle has been used by Christians throughout the ages to justify our involvement in pagan practices. Our holidays with pagan roots (Christmas, Easter, and occasionally Halloween) were all, over time, shaped into celebrations central to the Christian belief system. These holidays are now so Christian that many people are unaware of the pagan connections at all. This approached has also been applied (with lesser degrees of success) to practices like yoga. The idea is to take something you like from another culture, change some aspects of it to give it a Christian feel, and then feel complete freedom to engage with it. (and before you go there I am not in any way talking about cultural practices that are sins).

My issue with this approach is how oppressive and imperialistic it is. Essentially it chooses to steal what it likes from other cultures and write the rest of it off as worthless. The things that get "redeemed" are warped into mere shadows of what they were originally intended to be. There has been enough imperialism and rape of other cultures associated with Christianity, that to continue to discuss the interaction with other cultures in this language is generally demeaning and offensive. But the voices from the margins - those who have been oppressed and demeaned - is generally not heard or respected in Western Christian circles. With our imperialistic cultural values we really don't care about how we are perceived by others or what damage we do along the way. We often think that Jesus being the end justifies whatever means we employ to get to him. That said, I don't think the answer is then to resort back to rejection or cultural isolation.

3. Roots - I am currently exploring this approach not as the best answer out there but to understand a different way of interacting. This method seeks to understand the origins, or roots, of various cultural beliefs and practices. By seeing the history of something, one can see how it can evolve and grow. This is not about changing something through forms of violence, but learning to love and appreciate that which is other. I am all for admitting and discovering the pagan roots for things like Christmas and Easter. For all that Christians talk about getting back to the "true meaning" of those holidays, we forget the long history they represent. I want to affirm that history and respect that something I hold as dear to my beliefs has roots in the beliefs of others. I want to explore how the theology I hold to has been shaped by interactions with other cultures. How the Jews were influenced by the Zoroastrians in Persia or how prevailing political agendas influenced the popularity of various theories of the atonement. Everything has a history, everything is connected. Theology, culture, religion - they all grew out of something and fed off of each other as they grew. So as a Christian interacting with other cultures and beliefs, I want to learn from what they are offering to teach me and enter into a dialogue with them. I want to help give those on the margins a voice - the voice that has often been denied them in the name of Christianity. In being with dialogue with them I will of course take away parts of their culture and who they are. But I hope that I will be accepting a gift instead of violently acquiring. And I know that that dialogue will change the culture and change me - that is how cultures and people grow.

The issue with this - it's hard. It's hard to be invited to interact and learn. It's hard to dig through the layers of history to reclaim roots and celebrate growth. It is hard to convince most Christians that others deserve to have a voice and that they have something to offer. It's hard to remain in a church that cries "heretic" at those of us that seek the truth in these ways. It's really hard to love that which I don't yet understand.

Others offering reflections on Christianity and Paganism in this SynchroBlog -
Matthew Stone at Journeys in Between
Christianity, Paganism, and Literature at Notes from the Underground
John Smulo at JohnSmulo.com
Heathens and Pagans and Witches ... oh my! at Calacirian
Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
Erin Word at Decompressing Faith
Chasing the Wild Goose at Eternal Echoes
Visigoths Ahoy! at Mike's Musings
Belief and Being: The difficulty of communicating faith at Phil Wyman's Square No More
Steve Hollinghurst at On Earth as in Heaven
Undefined Desire at Igneous Quill
A Walk on the Wild Side at Out of the Cocoon
Observations on Magic in Western Religion at My Contemplations
Tim Abbott at Tim Abbott
Spirituality and the Zodiac: Stories in the Cosmos at Be the Revolution

Random Comments

2007-09-24T16:36:00.000-06:00

After talking about types of churches in my last post, I thought I should mention that I have a new article up at the Theolog Blog about community churches.

And I have to say that I am honestly trying not to say too much about the latest load of crap issued from Mark Driscoll. I do have to say that I find it amusing that a lot more people are pissed off with him now that he is attacking the big boys and not just women. But what can you expect...

Up/Rooted Panel Discussion - Megachurches

2007-09-24T15:43:00.000-06:00

In my continuing comments on the recent Up/Rooted panel discussion on the topic "the emerging church critique of evangelicalism" with Scot McKnight, Wayne Johnson, and David Fitch...

The last question of the evening involved if typical evangelical seeker style services (complete with the rock show and other celebratory gimmicks) are worthwhile if they manage to reach people. i.e. As emergents (or mainliners, or fundamentalists) we may criticize such services as lacking in depth, devoid of true worship, and for promoting an individualistic and consumeristic view of the church, but if they are what people need at that point in their life does that make them worthwhile? I think that is a good question that needs to be addressed, unfortunately the panelist ignored it and dove straight into an all out fight about megachurches. Seriously. Okay maybe "intense discussion of varying viewpoints" is the better way to describe it, but as "fights" go, this one was pretty good. It wasn't mean spirited and it was carried by humor throughout. It mostly involved Scot McKnight (who attends the megachurch of megachurches - Willow Creek) vs. David Fitch (who wrote an anti-megachurch book and recent blog post). Fun times.

Scot defended megachurches by saying that there is nothing a small church can offer that a megachurch doesn't offer. He dislikes it when people criticize churches like Willow when they have never actually attended the church. They don't know the church, they don't know the people there. They are just reacting to stereotypes they have heard. He also praised the potential anonymity at a megachurch. People can show up and not be known - they aren't pressured to "do", they aren't judged, and they aren't automatically labelled as a "visitor" (the ultimate church Other). Scot explained, "at Willow there is a permeable boundary between who is in or out." It is one of the few evangelical churches where gays and lesbians can attend without being ostracized or forced to immediately give up their "gayness" (whatever that means). It is in other words, a safe introduction to Christianity.

But my question is - is it really church if we can't be the body together? Can we really exist as strangers to each other and still claim to be a community? Is the desire to be unknown and unconnected a good thing? I personally think that the boundaries of all churches should be more permeable. I've attended churches where it was very clear who was in and who was out. Those who didn't fit in immediately (the occasional homosexual who might wander in) were given a very specific amount of time to repent and change who they are or else they were kicked out of the church. That is not church either imho. Places like that are what create the need for anonymity in the megachurches. People want a chance to discover what they believe before they identify themselves with a particular group in all of its religious weirdness. But can't the church offer people a place where they have the freedom to explore (at their own pace) and be accepted into the community? Are we really that incapable of loving people that to be lost in a crowd is preferable to joining a community? I personally don't think that being alone and unknown is a good thing no matter what circumstances forced it to be necessary.

I know that Willow does great things. And I know that there are many small churches where true community is non-existent. I'm just hoping for a better way.

Bill Gates on Education

2007-09-23T19:22:00.000-06:00

Today's issue of Parade Magazine featured a short piece on how Bill Gates hopes to change education in America. (if you already threw out the Sunday paper, live outside the USA, or generally can't stand reading that slice of conservative propaganda, you can read the article here). Putting aside the issue of why we are trusting Bill Gates to tell us how we should reform our schools, the article presented some rather messed up ideas. It states -

While educators debate the value of standardized tests, Gates is adamant that we need such tests and that ours should be tougher and more uniform. “Testing is the only objective measurement of our students,” he contends. “It’s incredible that we have no national standard.” As for those who say this will stifle creativity and lead to dull classrooms that only teach students how to pass tests, he replies: “If you don’t know how to read, it doesn’t matter how creative you are. More than a third of the people with high school diplomas have no employable skills.”

First I find it interesting that he doesn't deny that teaching to tests will stifle creativity and lead to dull classrooms. Like many testing advocates he seems to think such things are worth the price of adhering to this sort of system. Secondly, since when did creativity stop being an employable skill? Yes, I think everyone should learn to read. But the sort of "reading" skills taught in order for students to pass tests doesn't often lead to the ability to think creatively or critically. Despite studies that show that students who are allowed to develop all aspects of their intellect (through art and music) actually end up being better readers, there still seems to be the general assumption that things like art, music, and creativity get in the way of real education. I could just try to blame this on Gates being a computer geek and businessman, but this sort of unbalanced approach to education is rampant. Even if people actually think tests are worthwhile (something I highly disagree with), why does it have to be an either/or? If we are seeking to improve the schools and have people like Gates dumping money into them, why can't we seek a more holistic approach that affirms reading, math, and creativity?

I could rant on that topic for awhile given my general frustration with the pathetic state of education in our country and the even more pathetic attempts to fix it, so I'll move on for the moment and point of the other really inane thing the article wrote about Gates. Apparently "Gates also believes in small high schools, where students won’t get sucked into cliques." Okay, I know of schools that had graduating classes of 12 that still had cliques. Size of school has nothing to do with kids getting into cliques. I support smaller schools and much smaller class sizes but not because that will prevent kids from making friends with other people with similar interests. Smaller class sizes lead to more interaction and deeper exploration of subjects. Given a decent teacher (whose purpose is to teach and not to coach students through a test) such deeper interaction will lead to real learning (as opposed to rote memorization) and (dare I say it) more creative and critical students. At least it would be nice if it was allowed to happen, but apparently we are so uncreative and uncritical that we prefer to be told what to do by whoever has the most money.

Up/Rooted Panel Discussion - Emergent Freedom to Question

2007-09-22T22:23:00.000-06:00

At the up/rooted panel discussion the other night Scot McKnight spoke on the questions that are important to people in the emerging church. These are questions that were (still are) taboo in the evangelical church but which shape the faith journey of emergents. The point isn't so much the answers they land on, but that they feel like they can wrestle with (as opposed to suppress) these questions. Scot listed six main issues of discussion (and yes, this is a horrible paraphrase)-

Scripture & Inerrancy. e.g. Can Genesis contain mythic elements?

Science & Evolution. Instead of giving up the faith when finally exposed to science, can we actually be believers in light of science?

Hypocrisy. Can Christians be genuinely consistent?

Hell. Where did our views of hell even come from?

God. Do we really believe everything the Bible says about God?

Social location. Are most of us Christians because of the happenstance of where we were born?

When issues such as these are seen as beyond the realm of discussion, it forces believers to generally either deny their intellect or walk away from the faith. The emerging church gives people the freedom to ask the honest and hard questions about these things. Instead of being told that "good Christians" don't question the evangelical assumptions about hell or inerrancy, it has become almost the mark of a growing Christian in the EC that you explore those issues for yourself. Of course, I've learned from experience that taking advantage of that freedom to question is not looked upon favorably in many circles. For many just asking a question and thinking for oneself get one labeled as a heretic and results in a quick dismissal from one's job.

But, I think Scot's list is accurate in the issues he sees as central to the emerging conversation. The list could in many ways be the summation of my faith journey this past decade. Those were the question I wrestled with and am still exploring. I'm sure I've gone in different directions than some in the EC, but I've found resonance and a theological home with others. The only big thing I would add to the list is the whole gender question (women in ministry, gender roles...). That is really the issue that sent me down this road to begin with and has remained a central part of my experience of the emerging world. From what I have heard it is also the entry point for others (mostly women) into this conversation as well. I guess I could fit it under one of Scot's categories (scripture, God) and I know that it isn't as taboo of a topic in evangelical churches as others on the list, but I still see it as a vital and in many ways separate category.

What do others think? Are these categories accurate? What would you add?

Pop Culture Interlude 3

2007-09-22T09:06:00.000-06:00

So as the Fall TV season gets underway, I thought I would post what pop culture offerings I'm looking forward to. We of course have to wait until February for Lost to return, but Heroes starts on Monday. Then there are the guilty pleasure reality TV shows - Beauty and the Geek (if only to fuel my ire at stereotypes in America), Survivor: China (watching the evangelical gal squirm about the Buddhism should be interesting), and apparently there is a new FoodNetwork show The Next Iron Chef (I'm a fan of all things Iron Chef). I'm sure we will watch a few of the new pilots as well, just to see what the buzz is about (let's just say I am really curious about Bionic Woman). But I'm more excited about upcoming books and movies.

In (fiction) book news -

After nearly a decade the next book in the Obernewtyn Chronicles by Isobelle Carmody will finally be released. The Stone Key is scheduled for a Feb. 2008 release although for now that release seems to be limited to Australia (not a huge deal in light of the internet, but the shipping costs are annoying.) If you haven't encountered this widely popular (in Australia) young adult post-apocalyptic fantasy series yet, I highly recommend you give them a try (books 1-3 are available in the USA). Anyway, some of us have been waiting a long time for this one.

As for movies -

Coming out in just a couple of weeks is the film version of The Dark is Rising. I'm curious to see what they do with this. I enjoyed the book, but am not so sure how well it will translate to film.

For as much as I had a love/hate reaction to the book, I'm looking forward to the movie version of The Golden Compass.

A bit further out, but exciting nonetheless is the release of Prince Caspian in May 2008. I can't even count the number of times I have read the Narnia books, so I enjoy seeing these made into (good) movies.

And also coming out in May 2008, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It's Indiana Jones, it's a must see, but honestly what's with the name?

Up/Rooted Panel Discussion - Authenticity and Worship

2007-09-21T15:35:00.000-06:00

Last night the Chicago Emergent cohort, Up/Rooted, hosted a panel discussion on the topic "the emerging church critique of evangelicalism." On the panel were Scot McKnight, Wayne Johnson, and David Fitch. The entire evening's discussion should eventually be available as a podcast and I'm sure someone with more patience than I will post a nice summary somewhere. (update - sorry no forthcoming podcast, something about it not recording and there is a decent summary here) For now, I will point you to Dave Fitch's blog where he posted a few of the ideas he covered last night. Scot also hinted that he will be blogging about the ideas he presented as well. Needless to say it was a stimulating discussion that did a fairly decent job of summing up most of the emerging critiques of evangelicalism. But of course the conversation didn't stop there as the presenters worked in their critiques of emerging/emergent as well.

I heard a lot I liked last night, a number of things I disagreed with, and a few things I didn't understand. I of course didn't ask any questions there, because, well, I hate asking questions in that sort of setting. One can't engage in real dialogue and the question generally gets misunderstood anyway (as evidents by the "let's see who can ask the most convoluted and confused question" game the audience seemed to be playing last night). But given the joyous freedoms on the blogworld, I can post my thoughts, disagreements and questions here and, in good emerging/postmodern fashion, engage with dialogue with anyone who is so inclined. So I'll try to post my random thoughts on this panel discussion here over the next week or so. That said, let's jump right in and talk about...

Worship. In his initial presentation on the emerging critique of evangelicalism, Wayne Johnson focused on the aspect of worship. While he thought that the EC has done a good job in it's critique of consumer, seeker driven worship, he also pointed out a few weaknesses in the EC in regards to worship. In setting up his discussion on worship, he defined the concept of worship as "our response to God's revelation in the world" (not a direct quote, but close I think). I like that definition, but not his subsequent assertion that primary forms of worship should then be the Word and the Table. Sure those are important aspects of God's revelation, but the God I worship is a lot bigger than just those two things. But I digress... What I really had issue with in his talk was his critique of the emerging emphasis on authenticity.

I know that "authentic" has become a buzz word in the EC and I fully agree that that which is trendy often has no real substance or meaning. And I fully agree that to push one idea of what it means to be authentic (informal, organic...) onto a person who is not those things to begin with kinda misses the point of authenticity. I get that. But then Dr. Johnson claimed that to be authentic is to promote an individualism that hinders the communal act of the body of Christ entering into corporate worship. If we so fine-tune our services into that which is an "authentic" worship experience for us, we run the risk of heightening ethnic, cultural, and generational divisions. We care too much about ourselves and not enough for others.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for diverse churches and I think our self centered myopic worship wars have caused more harm than good in the church; but, I'm not ready to throw out the concept of "authentic." If authentic is defined as that which is "true, real, and genuine," would not the opposite be that which is "false or a lie"? In emerging critiques of evangelical worship (and in evangelical critiques of traditional worship for that matter) there has been a lot of talk about "just going through the motions." In other words, participating in a false and meaningless form of worship - lying to God. I don't think anyone wants to promote lying in one's response to God as a good thing, but the question arises of if lying to God is justified if it helps build community. Is it okay to be inauthentic and false in how one responds to God if it helps build up a diverse body of Christ?

I honestly have no idea if that is at all what Dr. Johnson was intending with his thoughts, but it is what immediately popped into my mind. Does serving others involve making weighted moral choices like that or am I way off base here? Maybe I'm just too seeped in the evangelical definition of sin as personal choice as opposed to a wider more emerging view that involves the community as a whole. Maybe I just really have an issue with the whole concept of the submission of my will to that of other people. But I can't bring myself to say that it is okay to engage in false acts of worship solely for the good of the community. I see no problem with remaining silent and not making a scene about it if one can't participate, but I can't justify engaging. But maybe that's just me. What are your thoughts? What's your take on this whole issue of authenticity and worship?

World Carfree Day

2007-09-20T08:38:00.000-06:00

Every September 22, people across the globe get together to swear off their cars, if only for one day, in a collective reminder that we don't have to accept car-dominated societies, cities, or personal lives. Since its earliest incarnations in the 1970s and '80s, WORLD CARFREE DAY has grown into a massive global celebration of human-centric communities and people-powered transportation.

Carfree Day 2007 could turn out to be the biggest yet. For the first time, China's government is hopping on board, with official events talking place in more than 100 cities, including Beijing and Shanghai. (Officials will reportedly be trading in their famed black sedans for public transportation.)

As the world tunes in to the fact that the climate is heating up, this is the perfect opportunity to take the heat off the planet, and put it on city planners and politicians to give priority to cycling, walking and public transport, instead of oil-hungry automobiles.

Check out the links below for global resources on going car-free, first on September 22, and then in your everyday life. Let World Carfree Day be a showcase for just how our cities might look, feel, and sound without cars - 365 days a year.

Nice idea. Now I'm fine with walking to basic places that day, but I know my town is like most of the USA and has zero public transportation. That is the most basic thing that needs to change before we get to the point when people can cut back (or stop) using cars.

Missional and Seekers

2007-09-19T16:30:00.000-06:00

Bob Roberts of Glocalnet recently put up a post about "being missional in the Sunday service" (ht - Rick Meigs). He had some good suggestions about being missional within the cultural trappings of the Sunday service. Like - if your worship consists of singing songs, it would help if those songs focused on service instead of just being another "me" centered melody (which is way easier said than done since songs like that are limited). But I was a bit uneasy with his opening assertions about being missional and seeker sensitive. He writes -

Can you reach seekers and be missional? Yes. Reaching seekers is missional! The challenge is how do you communicate to seekers, change their perceptions of God and church, help them find Jesus, and then help them understand we’ve been called to community to together live out the Kingdom.

I see all of the things he listed as good things, it is the order that he presents them in that bugs me. First you give them the messages about Jesus, God, and church and then you get them on board with being missional. It might just be me, but that smacks of the whole bait and switch technique that so many of us so desperately try to avoid. If the point is to follow Christ then call people to follow Christ from the get go. Don't woo them with spiffy seeker services and then expect them to catch the missional mindset. It's that old saying - "what you call people with is what you call them to". Calling people to enjoy a service and get committed to the church before you expect them to actually serve God can lead to disastrous results. In our "me? centered culture that sees church as a place to come, sit, mingle, be entertained, and possibly fed, to get people into your church for those things and then ask them to serve doesn't work. They either ignore the call to get up off their butts, or they find another church that doesn't make such "extreme" demands on their life.

But that can be a problem for churches. I've known churches where the people have left in droves after the church leadership started pursuing a more missional route. Our tiny little church plant continues to struggle with this as well. We don't want to present people with one conception of church and then push another agenda down the road. We try to be upfront about who we are and that scares people. They don't want to have to engage with the sermon, they don't want to have to give their time to missional events. It's too far out of their comfort zone. But it is who we are. We recently had a booth at our town's annual Hometown Days. We debated what to do with the booth (do we give away water or popcorn, what about free games for kids?). We eventually decided against the attractional gimmicks and instead sold fairly traded goods for Ten Thousand Villages - it sparked some good conversations about who we are as a church. What was amusing was that the new church plant in town went for all those attractional give aways (water bottles, candy, free games, ipods...). What you call them with is what you call them to - but somedays it seems like there are a lot more people out there interested in passive "gimme" styles of church than there are interested in missional churches.

That said, I also think that calling people to be missional does not come after the call to be a Christian, but is part of the call itself. In fact people can be serving God and helping others even if they are not onboard with the whole faith thing. Inviting people to engage with doing the work of Christ is part of calling them to Christ. We invite anyone to help out with our missional projects at church - even if they are not part of our church or any church at all for that matter. They are welcome to be the hands and feet of Christ even before they believe in Christ. And the interesting part is that action of serving and following Christ often makes them actually want to well, follow Christ. So being missional vs. being seeker sensitive doesn't follow in my book. It's about following Christ and that means being missional always.

Shopping at IKEA

2007-09-18T16:39:00.000-06:00

So I really like shopping at IKEA. If you visit my house that fact would be obvious since almost all my furniture, curtains, and decor come from IKEA. It's not that I just really love assembling my own furniture or furnishing an entire room for the cost of just one item anywhere else, it's the way the company respects its customers, its workers, and the environment.

I know that IKEA is a business and they do business very well. But while most businesses are cutting whatever corners they can to increase their profits, IKEA seems to go out of its way to provide amenities for its customers. Free childcare while you shop, nursing rooms, diaper dispensers in the bathrooms, bottle warmers, babyfood for sale, and free milk and cookies for kids in the afternoons (not to mention a fantastic cafeteria) - can you tell I'm a mom?. Sure they are all gimmicks, but it makes being there a pleasant experience.

But beyond that, IKEA has committed to being socially and environmentally responsible. As Emma and I ate lunch there today (she calls it the "meatball store"), I noticed that all of their trash cans (as opposed to recycle cans) were labeled "Landfill Waste." I like that. Where else will you be reminded of the end result of what you are throwing away? But they also are committed to creating furniture from sustainable sources and not using unfair labor practices. You can read their environmental reports on their websites. I'm sure that they aren't perfect, but its nice to see a company that cares about these things. A company that (as they put it) is committed to "low price but not at any price." They say -

For more than 60 years IKEA has been working on ways of creating low prices – purchasing as inexpensively as possible, building our own stores, flat-packing furniture for customers to put together themselves.

But our ambition doesn´t stop there. We also want the products we sell to be free from hazardous substances. And we don´t want the wood in bookcases, tables or other products in the store to come from areas where forests are being devastated.

All IKEA suppliers must follow certain fundamental rules. Working conditions must be acceptable, child labor is not tolerated and suppliers must adopt a responsible attitude to the environment.

I am the first to admit that their furniture isn't the nicest out there and easily shows wear and tear. It won't last generations to be passed down as heirloom furniture. I hear a lot about buying stuff that will last or getting good used stuff. I see the logic there, but comparatively the ethical choice isn't always so clear. So I buy cheap furniture at IKEA that was made in a socially and environmentally responsible way, but it won't last forever. I could have bought really expensive hardwood antique furniture that was made from US companies barging into countries like Haiti and clearcutting their hardwood forests. Haiti still hasn't recovered economically or environmentally from the US sanctioned rape of their land and resources. Give the bigger picture, which is the more ethical choice?

And so I shop at IKEA. I like supporting business practices I agree with. And where else can you get meatballs and gravalox for lunch?

Cultural Imperialism, Contextualization, and Postcolonial Missions

2007-09-18T00:40:00.000-06:00

I have my Master's in Intercultural Studies and Missions from Wheaton College - a very Evangelical institution. I was a bit of an oddball in the program as I went through it and would most likely not even begin to fit in now. I appreciate what I learned there and the paths of inquiry and questioning it led me down, but in many ways it didn't seem to go far enough. I studied cultural anthropology, intercultural communication, linguistics and the like all within the framework of contextualizing the Gospel into other cultures. For many students in the program the whole concept of contextualization in the first place was "liberal and heretical." For them the ends justified the means. Getting converts was worth whatever cultural cost had to be paid. (granted most of them actually thought that the way evangelicals did church was the way it had always been, so why syncretize the Gospel through such dubious means as contextualization?). But it wasn't until later that I saw firsthand that the vestiges of cultural imperialism in the guise of Christian missionary work are alive and well in many areas of Christianity.

During my stint as a Children's Ministries Director at a small Baptist church, I had the horrific experience of encountering one of the worst examples of Christian missionary cultural imperialism that I have ever seen. There was a family from another local area church (the super conservative and filthy rich one) that was doing the rounds of local churches to raise support to go be missionaries in Africa. They came to our church to do a special presentation during the Sunday school hour. That meant that somehow I got stuck with them coming to do a mini-presentation for the kids during the children's church I led during the main service. The wife who was wearing a dress straight out of Little House on the Prairie didn't say a word the entire morning, so we got to listen to the husband give the most racist missionary talk ever.

To give a bit of background, this family was white, very white and most of the kids in the children's church were black. After giving a report on Africa straight from the World Book Encyclopedia, the "missionary" guy launched into the whole "white man's burden" to go help the savages in Africa sort of thing. It was the whole "go convert the heathen" sort of missions work, but that wasn't the worst of it. He talked about the Africans as if they were less than human. At one point he even said that the Africans do nothing but sit alongside the rode all day being lazy, but they like it if you give them peanuts. I am so not kidding, he actually said give them peanuts like they were some sort of animal at a zoo. I was so appalled and shocked I didn't even know how to respond. I could tell that the kids were uncomfortable, but didn't think that they could disagree with the adult missionary. So when they finished their talk about what they would be doing in Africa, I just asked them to leave and then I started in on damage control with the kids. I officially begged that our church not support them and was seriously stunned that missionaries like that were still being sent out as representatives of Christianity. I have no clue if they ended up actually making it to Africa and I hope to God they did not.

I react in horror to stories like those, but of course there are those who react in horror to any sort of missionary work no matter how culturally sensitive or contextual it is. But I am realizing that most of my perspectives for or against contextualization or missionary work in general have come from Western sources. I rarely hear indigenous perspectives on cultural encounters with Christianity. I instead hear selected reports from converts who have bought the Western Christian package in its entirety and I hear missionary reports that include only the success stories spun in such a way to keep the money coming (and yes I've written such reports). But encountering the whole postcolonial theological perspective is new to me. Not only are the methods of church and missions questioned, but the whole Western theological paradigm is deconstructed. I'm exploring how the pieces all fit together for me. Where does the line of imperialism lie? When is compassion and dialogue and contextual expressions of faith domineering and condescending, and when are they appropriate? How do I not place my cultural heritage at the center of my beliefs? I'm just beginning to struggle with how these questions play out in my life.

Buy Bananas, Aid Terrorists

2007-09-17T21:30:00.001-06:00

From BBC news -

US banana firm must pay $25m fine
United Self Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC) - file picture
Chiquita said it made "protection" payments after threats to staff
A US judge has confirmed a $25m (£12.5m) fine on banana company Chiquita for having given protection money to Colombian paramilitary groups.

In March, Chiquita pleaded guilty to paying $1.7m (£850,000) to the United Self Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC).

The firm said its only motive was the safety of its Colombian workers.

It agreed to pay the $25m to resolve an inquiry by the US justice department, a settlement that Judge Royce Lamberth has now authorised.

Prosecutors had said Chiquita Brands International paid the money between 1997 and 2004 to the AUC in return for "protection".

The AUC, which is listed by the US and EU as a terrorist organisation, has carried out massacres and assassinations, although it is now engaged in a peace process in Colombia

Prosecutors said Chiquita also made payments to Colombia's main left-wing rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc).

The company's former Colombian subsidiary operated in areas where there was a strong presence of both armed groups.

Chiquita, which has its headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio, said in March that it would pay the $25m fine as part of a settlement with the department of justice.

A three-year inquiry by US investigators began after Chiquita approached the department in 2003 to say its branch in Colombia had been making the payments after workers were threatened.

Chiquita has since sold the Colombian arm of its business.

Thousands of Colombians have died in four decades of conflict involving the Farc, the AUC and other armed groups.

Struggle to Know

2007-09-14T22:41:00.000-06:00

I recently started reading Postcolonial Imagination & Feminist Theology by Kwok Pui-lan. The book is stretching me in many ways as it forces me to view my faith through an utterly foreign lens. It's a good thing, but it can be a tad overwhelming at points. More on all that later. I just wanted to share tonight the words the author uses to open the first chapter. She writes -

I have been reflecting on my long intellectual journey to "struggle to know." Why is knowing a struggle? It is a struggle because you have to spend years learning what others told you is important to know, before you acquire the credentials and qualifications to say something about yourself. It is a struggle because you have to affirm first that you have something important to say and that your experience counts.

I have no clue if this is something that white western men can understand experientially (if it is my apologies for negating your journey), but this is the story I have lived and that I have heard told to me by others. It's the struggle women face when they attempt to have a voice or be a leader. When the world that is constructed for us looks one way, but our experiences and our self awareness reveal something else entirely, it is more than just difficult to find our place in that world. When all that we know about life, history, religion is slanted in a certain direction, to step up and use our voice is not such as easy thing. When to just be ourselves challenges all that is accepted, holy and dear in the world, it becomes all that much harder to speak out and attempt to make a difference. When we are mocked, labeled, and dismissed for believing that our experience counts, it truly is an ongoing struggle.

Sippy Cup Exposé

2007-09-13T14:24:00.000-06:00

So to combine my mommy blogging and my rants on gender issues, I give you the Sippy Cup Exposé. I was looking at Emma's sippy cups recently and noticed that we had a set of Playtex sippy cups that seriously played into gender stereotypes. The cups are pink and blue. The blue cup displays fish (in a school) undergoing academic pursuits. They are learning the ABC's, looking at a globe, and using a ruler. The pink cup on the other hand has personified teacups, fruit, and flowers. WTF!

I am so sick of being faced with gender specific assumptions when I get anything for Emma. The whole pink and blue thing is everywhere - it's hard to avoid exposing her to the idea that pink=girls and blue=boys. All the clothes are pink and purple covered in flowers, hearts, princesses, or ballet shoes. And now the sippy cups get involved too. So what does it matter that I let her use the blue=academic/intellectual cup? She knows that the pink one is for girls and so sees that girls are associated with tea parties and flowers while boys are associated with learning and school. I'm sure people will say that I'm overreacting and am too sensitive, but I'm just finding it really difficult to avoid imparting to my daughter oppressive gender roles. Does the world really have to promote cultural stereotypes on freaking sippy cups? This gets more annoying everyday...

Pastor's Wife

2007-09-12T23:14:00.000-06:00

I haven't read the book pictured here, or the widely popular She Can't Even Play the Piano. I throw away the denominational fliers I get for "pastor's wives" retreats. When we started in this whole church planting adventure, the thing I was most horrified by was that I would be a pastor's wife. Of course I was reacting to stereotypes and my limited experiences, but whatever a pastor's wife was - that was not me.

I didn't want my life, my personality, defined for me by others. I didn't want to be merely what others expected me to be. I am myself and being a "pastor's wife" should do nothing to change that. It helped that Mike and I are ministry partners doing this church planting thing together. I'm not just some invisible support beam that arranges the coffee behind my mask of unfaltering allegiance to every word that drips from my husband's mouth. We plan together, make decisions together, and share responsibilities like preaching. As a person I am going to have questions and doubts and am not going to hide those because I am a pastor or pastor's wife. When I think something is full of crap, I'm going to say that. I have no interest in being told what mold I'm supposed to be fitting into. I think the mold is stupid to begin with. (how's that for a thoughtful critique).

But apparently, the struggle to maintain a personal identity is a major problem for many pastor's wives. There are numerous books on how to be a good pastor's wife (or at least on how not to go insane as one). Most of them focus on how to be yourself while being the person everyone expects you to be. Did they ever stop to think that it is because of whacked out advice like that that women are reading those sorts of books at all? And of course, everyone's favorite go-to guy for sexist quotes, Mark Driscoll, has even suggested a few things that will help make a pastor's wife's life easier and less stressful. He writes -

"What can be done to help the pastors' wife?

* She needs a clearly defined and guarded role.
* She needs some help with the kids and house.
* She needs some help getting to and from church on Sundays.
* She needs a designated parking place.
* She needs a handful of safe relationships with other godly women.
* She needs to choose her own friends and define her own relationships.
* She needs to see her first jobs as Christian, wife, and mother, not free hire for the church."
http://www.theresurgence.com/md_blog_2007-07-17_death_by_ministry_part_10

Wow my own parking place at church, that would really make my life easier. And to be allowed (within my protected and guarded role) to choose my friends! What am I - a grown woman or a kindergartner? Maybe it would have helped if he had added to the list - "She needs to have a husband who doesn't say that a pastor's sexual sins are the fault of his wife not looking hot." But that might be asking too much.

These books and this advice is so condescending it's embarrassing. Sure the stereotypes and the expectations have caused problems, but I would think that allowing a women to be herself would be more useful than defining and restricting her role more. It's a messed up system, the whole church culture is a messed up system. We've created this ultra-ritualized pageant where people are expected to act in certain roles. It would be amusing if it wasn't so very sad. So do I have a point here? I don't know. Just that I refuse to be labeled with any of the expectations of being a pastor's wife. And that I feel sorry for the women who are confined by that role.

Creativity and Language

2007-09-11T22:26:00.000-06:00

You begin this way:
this is your hand,
this is your eye,
that is a fish, blue and flat
on the paper, almost
the shape of an eye.
This is your mouth, this is an O
or a moon, whichever
you like. This is yellow.

Outside the window
is the rain, green
because it is summer, and beyond that
the trees and then the world,
which is round and has only
the colors of these nine crayons.

This is the world, which is fuller
and more difficult to learn than I have said.
You are right to smudge it that way
with the red and then
the orange: the world burns.

Once you have learned these words
you will learn that there are more
words than you can ever learn.
The word hand floats above your hand
like a small cloud over a lake.
The word hand anchors
Your hand to this table,
your hand is a warm stone
I hold between two words.

This is your hand, these are my hands, this is the world,
which is round but not flat and has more colors
than we can see.

It begins, it has an end,
this is what you will
come back to, this is your hand.

Copyright © 1978 by Margaret Atwood.

I love that poem - the simplicity that hints at the vast complexity of language and knowledge. Teaching words to a child - naming the world and defining the boundaries. At this stage it feels like I am restricting Emma's world. This word, this symbol, is this. Eye, hand, rain. The words are the thing itself. We struggle through this, this naming of things.

Emma - What happened to the mouse?
Me - The mice?
Emma - No, mouse.
Me - When there are more than one, they are called mice.
Emma - No, that's not nice. Mouse.

Mice and Nice. We're working on that one. The naming continues. Words are what she knows and there is power in words. I define the world for her, answer her "what is it?" question with a name - the right answer. Abstract words are harder. She knows saying please is associated with getting what she wants, but hasn't quite realized that it isn't a magical spell one casts that always results good things. She orders her world with the phrases she knows. She's heard Dora when getting on a boat say "lifejackets - so we can be safe" enough times that as she played with her Noah's Ark toy recently each animal had to put on a lifejacket before entering the ark. Words define, they set boundaries, they are secure.

But I see her from time to time breaking free of the constraints of language I have set for her. She is discovering the power to create with language - to be involved in her own process of naming. Tonight the space under the table became the realm of Puddleduck where the caped hero Gobbleguck attempted to escape from lions, tigers, dinosaurs and the mommy tickle monster. The world is not flat in reality, language does define and constrain, but there is still the power to create. Perhaps with just these nine colors we can create infinite shades.

Organic Farming Delivers

2007-09-10T19:41:00.000-06:00

As summer winds down and I am harvesting insane amounts of organic heirloom tomatoes from my garden (and have the fruit flies in my home to prove it!), I came across this fascinating article. One of the most common objections to organic farming is that if everyone switched to organic farming then there would not be enough food in the world for everyone. The logic goes that it takes intensive farming using fertilizers and pesticides to produce enough food for people to eat. But a new study coming out of the University of Michigan proves that excuse wrong. The study shows that "organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land—according to new findings which refute the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population." Nice.

So why is this a good thing? As the article points out, "organic farming is important because conventional agriculture—which involves high-yielding plants, mechanized tillage, synthetic fertilizers and biocides—is so detrimental to the environment...For instance, fertilizer runoff from conventional agriculture is the chief culprit in creating dead zones—low oxygen areas where marine life cannot survive. Proponents of organic farming argue that conventional farming also causes soil erosion, greenhouse gas emission, increased pest resistance and loss of biodiversity." Basically we are screwing over the world and our health with what have become common farming practices. Organic farming seeks sustainable and healthy methods of providing food. It cares for the environment, the consumers' health, and the health and well-being of the farmer. (and yes, the health issues of the migrant farmer who makes $7000 a year with no health insurance who has to breath pesticides and fertilizers in mass quantities are a serious issue if you even remotely think life is precious and sacred).

So what's the catch? Why aren't people jumping on the organic bandwagon? I'm sure they don't say - "because we enjoy destroying the environment, getting cancer, and killing migrant farmers" (at least I hope they don't). No those issues are usually ignored in favor of - "because organic is inconvenient and expensive." And boy does that reveal what our values really are.

Racism in My Life

2007-09-09T14:36:00.000-06:00

I was having a discussion with friends recently about racism and our personal experiences with understanding race issues. All of us were white and everyone but me grew up in neighborhoods that were completely white as well. They all remembered the first time a non-white person moved into their neighborhood. I though grew up in Dallas where the majority of my classmates and most of my teachers were African-American. I then moved to Austin when I was 12 and encountered an even larger ethnic mix. We lived in a mostly Jewish neighborhood, but I had friends who were Korean, Russian, Egyptian, Brazilian, Indian, Mexican, and Iranian. The dividing lines in Austin were less racial and more economic and educational. Most of my friends had parents involved either with the University of Texas or in the lucrative computer technology boom. So I didn't think much about racism until I had to deal with it head on in 8th grade.

Austin spent the majority of the 80's and 90's imposing forced integration on its school system. Kids from one sort of ethnic neighborhood were bused across town to go to school in neighborhoods that were generally of a different racial mix. So for Jr. High I got to catch the bus at 6AM to go to school in East Austin. My school also happened to be the Math and Science Academy to which I applied and joined. Those of us in the academy represented just about every race and nationality, but the kids in the regular classes who were from the local neighborhoods around the school were almost exclusively African-American. And these were very poor rough neighborhoods. Riding the bus through them we would frequently see drug deals taking place and the boys on the bus (Jr. High remember) would toss nickels to the prostitutes on the streets. It goes without saying there there was a lot of tension between the local students and the academy students. Teachers did their best to ignore it and never got involved in inter-racial fights - they valued their job too much. The principal was an African-American woman who also ran a night-club. Two of her husbands had mysteriously died from poisoning. She spoke every morning on the intercom about what a nice happy family we all were, but that did nothing to relieve the racial tension. We students thought she was a joke.

That tension came to a head for me in 8th grade. That year a local African-American girl named Kiva started attending the school. We never had classes together (I was in the academy, she wasn't) but we passed each other in the hall. One day she noticed I was missing my left arm (it was harder to notice then because I wore a cosmetic prosthesis). She freaked out and started screaming. From that point on she would start screaming "it's the one armed girl" every time she saw me and run away from me. It was Jr. High, so that was embarrassing, but then it got worse. She got over her fear of my arm and started harassing me. She would follow me around calling me names, throw my books down the stairs, and rip my folders and homework. She would open the courtyard doors during lunch and let her gang member friends in to harass and throw things at me. Teachers would witness this, but like I said, they would not get involved in inter-racial issues.

One day I was about to walk up the stairs and she came up behind me and told me she commanded me to walk up the stairs. I told her I didn't want to and started walking away. She then told me that even though I was white and thought I was better than her because she was black, I really wasn't because I was missing my arm. She was better than a handicapped person and so could tell me what to do. She then tried to make me give her my watch, and I said, "leave me alone bitch" and walked away.

Things came to a head one day when (in front of two watching teachers) she stabbed me with her pen and it drew blood. I had to tell my parents then. They were of course livid and called the school to complain. So both Kiva and I were sent to the principal to talk. I told her all that Kiva had done to me and then she asked Kiva why she did it. Kiva said because I called her a bitch. And so I got in trouble for using a curse word and not trying to be part of the big happy family. Kiva was asked to be nicer to me.

I had a hard time learning to deal with that sort of racial tension. I had friends from various racial backgrounds, but I didn't know how to cope with being hated for being white, educated, relatively wealthy, and handicapped. I think it opened my eyes to a lot of the underlying issues behind racism and the systemic nature of the problem. But that didn't mean I did anything to help heal racial relations. I left that school for the highly educated IB Academy high school, I went to a nearly all-white college, and now live in a homogeneously white Midwestern town. And I have conversations with friends about racism, but instead of learning from my Jr. High experience on how to tear down the walls that divide I've apparently only managed to build thicker walls. And I don't know how to change that.

Church Signs Once Again

2007-09-07T09:49:00.000-06:00

So I'll put up a short post in my continuing series of rants on crummy church signs. Once again the local Baptist church has caught my attention with their sign. On one side it displays the evangelical pseudojoke - "And you think it's hot here!" Cheezy, but I've heard it before. Then the other side reads - "Free trip to Heaven. Inquire inside." Does anyone else find that just a tad creepy? Doesn't exactly inspire confidence to make me want to go anywhere near that building. It's a bit like a scuba place advertising "We'll help you swim with the fishies." True from a certain perspective, but creepy nonetheless.

Returning to Reality...

2007-09-06T17:53:00.000-06:00

So the splint is off. I still can't really use my finger, but the swelling is gone and it actually bends now. I can still barely type, but I don't have that huge splint thingy making all my other fingers completely useless anymore. It's been a really slow week not being able to do anything at all for myself. I discovered I could kinda hold a mass market sized paperback - so I spent the last few days rereading my favorite fantasy series and watching way too many episodes of Heroes. It was fun for about a day, but then being completely helpless, not being able to take care of Emma, not doing anything productive, and having to eat Mike's cooking got old real fast... Anyway, just wanted to give a short update.

Sorry, Julie is currently unavailable...

2007-09-02T22:19:00.000-06:00

Julie asked me to let you all know that she won't be able to post to her blog or respond to email for a few days since she recently sprained her finger trying to put Emma into her car seat and therefore cannot type. Hopefully her finger will be healed in a couple of days.

If anyone's counting, this is the second time this past year that our 2-year old has sent Julie to the ER.

-Mike

Facebook Fun

2007-09-01T09:23:00.000-06:00

If you are on Facebook, you might know that one of the trendy new applications is "Compare People." It is the online way of doing what we all do in real life - namely compare and stratify people. The way it works is that you are asked a question (Who is smarter? for example) and then forced to choose between two of your Facebook friends chosen randomly. I added the application, but have yet to actually compare anyone because I can't bring myself to answer the choices they give me. I figure this idea might be great if you are dealing with just your high school or college friends, but it gets a bit weird when you have mostly online friends on your list. Some are just strange - like do I really want to answer if my brother or my brother-in-law is sexier? But some of the questions end up just being funny in the really odd sort of way. So here are a few of the most amusing questions I've been asked -

Who is more likely to win in a fight? - Sonja Andrews or Makeesha Fisher

Who has a better body? - Benjamin Ady or Hemant Mehta

Who is a better catch? - Steve Knight or Ryan Notton

Who has prettier eyes? - Spencer Burke or Brian McLaren

Who would I rather kiss? - Brother Maynard or Will Samson

Who is a better dancer? - Scot McKnight or Tony Jones

So anyone willing to venture answers? :)

The Gospel and Wheaton College

2007-08-31T10:00:00.000-06:00

I received my Wheaton Alumni magazine in the mail the other day. Usually I just flip through it and skip to the gossip pages in the back - who got married, who had a baby, who wrote what book, the fun stuff. This issue though intrigued me. It sought to examine why student activism is on the rise.

When I was at Wheaton in the nineties, I knew nothing about social justice. Oh there were a few activist groups on campus that would do things like picket abortion clinics, but the concept of helping the oppressed really wasn't on my radar. I had friends who would go off about public health issues or American injustices in Latin America, but they were on the fringe. It took my own post-college personal study to realize that caring for the needs of others is a Biblical value.

So, to have student activism highlighted in the Wheaton magazine surprised me. Then I actually read the article. While it does applaud the students for their idealism, it takes a rather apologetic tone in doing so. The section on students for peace devotes a good portion of the space to how those students learned to understand the convictions of those in the army after a panel discussion on campus. The activism article was followed not so subtly by an article about Wheaton alumni serving as Chaplains in the military. Apparently the college wants to make sure that rich alumni don't get the impression that the school officially supports these rogue activist students. (and before you tell me I'm too cynical, I worked for the Wheaton Advancement department for a few years and know the posture one must assume when wealthy alumni are involved.) But the equivocating and the apologies were nothing compared to college President Duane Litfin's back page editorial.

Litfin addresses the rise of student activism by asserting that "we must never allow our activism to eclipse our verbal witness... the temptation to reduce the contribution of the church to the so-called 'social gospel' is always before us." Apparently we are tempted to help others so that we can hear the applause and respect of the world, but they should be hating us because of Jesus. Litfin writes, "feed the poor, heal the sick, stand up for the oppressed and the world will often approve. But name the unique name of Jesus and it will often not be applause you hear." Does he really think that students are following the command of Jesus so that they can be approved by the world? Apparently to Litfin, those commands of Jesus are insignificant parts of scripture that obedience to does nothing to proclaim Christ.

The editorial then goes on to quote and reject the famous saying of St. Francis, "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary." Litfin claims that this saying is false, "the gospel cannot be "preached" nonverbally. The gospel is inherently a verbal thing. It requires verbal expression. Social activism can never take its place." No wonder I never heard about social justice at Wheaton. All that is deemed acceptable there is the truncated gospel of Christ's economic exchange. What matters is verbally confessing Christ so that we get into heaven when we die and not following the way in which Christ taught us to live. If Christ was sent to preach the gospel of the kingdom of God and all we focus on is his death on the cross (and condemn his actual message) there are some serious issues going on here. I am reminded of this quote I came across in a Christianity Today interview with Ruth Padilla DeBorst.

When Christianity came into Latin America, many of the indigenous groups simply changed the names of their gods: They gave them Christian saints' names. But they really continued worshiping their original gods. Churches were built on top of temples. Seventy-five years ago, John Mackay wrote a wonderful book, The Other Spanish Christ, which asks whether Latin America could discover the Christ who was incarnate, who walked the streets and died and rose from the dead and is powerful today. This Christ was not widely portrayed in the first evangelization of Latin America. Christ was either a helpless baby, toward whom we feel affection and compassion, or a corpse, a dead body with no power or ethical demands. This is what happens when religion is too closely linked with power: The problem is not just that religion underwrites oppression, but that the gospel itself is lost. If Christ is just a baby or a dead body, I can keep on living and not allow Christ's lordship to shed light on all dimensions of my life."

So can the evangelical church and places like Wheaton College accept not just the Christ who dies, but the living Christ who makes ethical demands? Will the full Christ be allowed to be known within those institutions or will a hollow Christ used merely as God's sacrificial pawn be all that is allowed to be taught? I know I've traveled a long way since my time at Wheaton, but I also know (as this article attests) that there are students at Wheaton now who are embracing the full gospel no matter what protestations the administration makes to the contrary.

Priestess Clawson Responds

2007-08-30T21:16:00.000-06:00

And now for today's entertainment... The anti-emergent mafia strikes again granting me a place of honor (dubious though it may be). Over at the fairly new diatribe of hate entitled Wonky73 - A Crazy Man's Utopia (I am so not kidding) the author lists offenders guilty of "emergy oozy chaos." After reading the trashing the Open Source Theology blog and Emerging Women, I came across a rather amusing description of myself (isn't it lovely what strangers can tell you about yourself?) Anyway, here is what I discovered about myself, starting with the end of the reaction to the Emerging Women blog -

Clearly, this is a blog of people moving down the train tracks of apostasy. Once you’ve removed the scriptural authority the gates are blown wide open for every kind of error to flood in.
Down those tracks, deeper and deeper, we go where in we find (strap in and hang on folks) the Onehandclapping blog. This can be a very frightening place, if you don’t have experience in radical liberal theology. The writer describes herself as: (read my blog profile)

As an aside it’s sad to see Wheaton’s fallen so far as to produce a person like this. A quick perusal of her blog makes it clear. She is a radical liberal femi-nazi. No concern for God or the scriptures will be found here. She’s far to concerned with spreading a feminist agenda, babbling nonsense about social justice, eating ethically, and buying a “just” bra. Most importantly she holds a special contempt for the scriptures and their authority.
Gotta admit I had fun writing this. Let’s finish with a flourish of quotes from Priestess Clawson: (recent quotes from my posts).

Wow - Priestess. Now that's just too fun. But honestly this serves as the perfect example of the fear I see around us these days. The fear that criticizes a group of women for reading a book that some disagree with (because reading something one disagrees with could be dangerous). And to utterly reject any form whatsoever of social justice and environmentalism - I just don't get it anymore. I understand tempered limited forms of caring for people and caring for God's creation, but to reject and mock them entirely? What sort of theology encourages that? This message of fear and hatred is wrapped in Christian language and baptised by Christian theology. This my friends is the church. And people still ask why we emergents think things need to change...

Blessings and the Divine

2007-08-29T19:48:00.000-06:00

Are all blessings truly only from God? We talk about being "blessed" and invoke God's blessing on America (or the whole world if you are of a more generous bent), but are such blessings solely from the divine?

I was thinking about that today because something recalled to me a conversation I had with my best friend back in Jr. High. To give a bit of context to the conversation I should say that my friend was (is?) an atheist. She had grown up in India as her father did research on ancient Sanskrit texts. Having witnessed the effects of organized religion on creating such horrors as the Caste system, she refused to ever follow any religion. That soon led to a disbelief in God altogether.

One day our botany class was outside tending the school garden and she happened to notice the school sign. In typical early nineties feel-good self-esteem public school parlance it read - "We Are So Blessed." My friend took serious offense at it. She starting ranting about how it violated the separation of church and state to be proclaiming such a religious statement on public school property. Most of us around her were a bit confused. None of us had assumed that the statement had any religious connotation whatsoever. I figured it meant something like "we are blessed to have such great students." But my friend argued that the entire concept of blessing was a religious one and that blessings could only come from deities. Since she didn't believe in said deities that sign was forcing religion upon her. She left then to go complain to our teacher who happened to be a rather militant atheist. I don't remember what happened after that, if the sign was changed or not, but I remember vividly the oddity of that conversation.

So I wonder now if I too trace all blessings to God. If I believe that all that is good comes from God, then all blessings no matter who bestows them are from God as well. If we have been blessed to be a blessing (as the covenant describes), we then are indeed God's avatars. God's mystery of working behind and within all things encompasses the goodness of blessing. As a Jr. Higher I brushed such an idea aside in favor of a secular interpretation, but my atheist friend saw the hand of the divine there nonetheless.

Prayer Synchroblog

2007-08-26T15:09:00.000-06:00

Kneeling
by R. S. Thomas

Moments of great calm,
Kneeling before an altar
Of wood in a stone church
In summer, waiting for the God
To speak; the air a staircase
For silence; the sun’s light
Ringing me, as though I acted
A great rôle. And the audiences
Still; all that close throng
Of spirits waiting, as I,
For the message.
Prompt me, God;
But not yet. When I speak,
Though it be you who speak
Through me, something is lost.
The meaning is in the waiting.

In reflecting on prayer recently I have been drawn to this poem. Prayer in my life at the moment is something that is in many ways undefined. I pray, but often in ways that seem contrived or hollow. It is when I sit in those moments of silence that my communion with God seems most authentic.

To hear from God and to be inspired to speak words of truth and encouragement from God is often something I rush into. My ideas stumble over each other in the burning passion to have something to say. I might throw in a perfunctory prayer - a ritual to be performed - out of obligation rather than intentional worship. Real prayer, real communion, goes much deeper than that and is full of silence.

Silence is nebulous. It is uncomfortable. It can't be quantified. I can't check off that I spent x number of minutes for my "Quiet Time" and prayer. I can't go through the mental checklist of praying the ACTS (or CATS) acronym. It was easier when I could, but it still felt hollow.

So I'm learning to accept silence. I don't understand it. I don't "do it" well. But I have learned that there is meaning in the waiting. And so I wait in silence.

For other contributions to this synchroblog on prayer check out Lyn or Erin's blogs.

Update - here's the list of participants.

Cindy Bryan Teach Me to Pray…Again?
Lyn Hallewell God, Prayer and Me
Erin Word Prayer=Sex with God
Rick Meigs Prayer Helps that Get Me Deeper
Alan Knox Pray without Ceasing
Julie Clawson Prayer Synchroblog
Heather Synchroblog Prayer
Alex (Heather’s Husband) Prayer Synchroblog II
Lydia How Do You Pray
Che Vachon My Thoughts…
Paul Mayers Praying and Learning to Pray Again
Sonja Andrews The Appearance of Holiness
Jon Peres How Do I Pray?
Paul Walker One Congregation Experiments with Emerging Prayer
Susan Barnes Synchroblog: How Do You Pray?
Brother Maynard Fear Not the Silence
Nate Peres How Do I Pray?
Barry Taylor Synchroblog:How Do You Pray?
Emerging Grace Clearance Sale on Intercession Books
Jim Lehmer Synchroblog - How Do You Pray?
Lew A How Do You Pray? - Synchroblog
Jon Hallewell When I’m Spoken To
Deb Prayer Synchroblog
Barb Prayer without Throwing Things
Patti Blount How Do I Pray
Doug Jones How I Pray
Glenn Hagar Prayer Phases
Pam Hogeweide The Art of Blue Tape Spirituality
Mary How Do I Pray?
Rhonda Mitchell Prayer SynchroBlog
John Smulo Praying Naturally
Rachel Warwick How Do You Pray?
Barbara Legere How to Not Pray
Jonathan Brink Posture - Sitting With My Daddy
Andy How Do I Pray
Cynthia Clack How Do I Pray
Makeesha Fisher The Mystery of Prayer

Women's Equality Day

2007-08-25T14:40:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow August 26 is Women's Equality Day in the United States.

August 26th is the anniversary of national woman suffrage. Across the seventy-two years between the first major women’s rights conference at Senecca Falls, New York, in 1848, and the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, thousands of people participated in marches through cities like New York and Washington DC, wrote editorials and pamphlets, gave speeches all over the nation, lobbied political organizations, and held demonstrations with the goal of achieving voting rights for women. Women also picketed the White House with questions like, “Mr. President, what are you going to do about woman’s suffrage?” “Mr. President, how long must women wait for liberty?” This was the first time in history that a group of people picketed the White House.

The woman suffrage amendment was introduced for the first time to the United States Congress on January 10, 1878. It was re-submitted numerous times until finally in June 1919 the amendment received approval from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Over the following year the suffragists spent their time lobbying states in order to have the amendment ratified by the required two-thirds of the states. On August 24th, Tennessee, the final state needed for ratification, narrowly signed the approval by one vote. The vote belonged to Harry Burn, who heeded the words of his mother when she urged him to vote yes on suffrage. The U.S. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby signed the amendment into law on August 26, 1920.

So its been 87 years since one vote decided that women's voices were not inferior to men's - at least when it came to the voting booth. The years since have demonstrated that the political decree has had some positive impact, but has done little to alter the prejudice of hard hearts. Women are still despised by some, still paid less, still held back at work, and still forced into stereotypes. To echo Elizabeth Cady Stanton, equality is seeking for women to be judged by who they are as an individual and not solely by a relationship they may or may not be involved in (as she said "In discussing the sphere of man we do not decide his rights as an individual, as a citizen, as a man by his duties as a father, a husband, a brother, or a son, relations some of which he may never fill."). I would expand that we are whole people and the relationships we are involved in help create who we (women and men) are as individuals, but are not the sum total of who we are. So I am a wife and a mother (and daughter, sister, and friend), but those relationships do not define what roles I am capable of fulfilling. All aspects of my life including my talents, intellect, and passions (as well as my relationships) form who I am. And I appreciate it when I am valued and respected for who I am holistically, and not just seen through the lens of mother, or wife (or college grad, or Pastor). So then, why is it that some corners of the church are the last place where the value of a person is recognized? Why is the call for an equal voice (in practice as well as theory) still an issue? It took 72 years of active campaigning for American women to be counted as worthwhile people, and it has taken (so far) 87 years to get that message heard. And while much has been achieved, there is still a very long way to go.

Responsibility

2007-08-24T16:19:00.000-06:00

I get rather annoyed when I hear people talking about how irresponsible youth are these days. Oh, I admit that there are teenagers who are self-centered and flaky, but so are many adults. It's just that teenagers can be blamed and have rules and laws imposed on them to make them shape up (or at least allow the adults to pretend the problem's solved). A few kids get drunk and have an accident, all teens then have to have a curfew. A few kids wear gang symbols, then all kids have clothing restrictions imposed on them. Not that rules don't exist for adults, we at least have the opportunity to complain about their stupidity without being grounded or suspended.

Why does it annoy me? Because in my experience working with youth they are exceedingly more responsible than adults. I can hire a neighbor kid to cut my grass and I can be sure he will show up to do the job. The cable guy, the plumber, or the phone company are never that reliable. Similarly when I was a Children's Pastor, I do not recall a single year of VBS when there were any adult volunteers who showed up every night. Every single one of them managed to come up with some last minute excuse to skip an evening or two (as well as the entire training period). The teenage helpers on the other hand made it to the training, showed up on time, and were consistently there every night for the kids.

And it's not just that teens are often more responsible than adults, but that I have seen parents forcing their kids to bail on their responsibilities if it cramps their (the parents) style. One year when I was on vacation, I left the weekly Children's Club to the responsibility of one of my teenage helpers. He knew the lesson, knew what set-up involved, and was a committed helper that all the kids knew. Well, he talked back to his mom that week and she grounded him from all activities he enjoyed - including helping with the kids club. (and yes his mom was a committed church member involved in other children's ministry activities herself). Since when was a good punishment (if that exists) to teach your kid that failing one's responsibilities is a good thing? Similarly when we would train teams of teens for mission trips we got to the point where we had to have the parents as well as the teens sign commitment forms. We had discovered that the parents saw a teen's commitment as nonbinding if the parent wished. So last minute family trips, or chores, or babysitting siblings came before training sessions the teens had signed a commitment saying they would attend. But then nothing changed even after the parents signed the commitment forms as well. Apparently giving one's word and signing a commitment held less value for the parents than personal convenience and pleasure.

What really got me though was that the same parents who forced their kids to avoid responsibility then complained to us (as youth and children's pastors) that their kids were irresponsible and could we please teach them something about responsibility. Somedays I just wanted to shake those parents and tell them to open their eyes. But I didn't. That wouldn't have been the nice and responsible "Christian" thing to do. So I just rant about it now.

Things that make you wonder...

2007-08-23T16:51:00.000-06:00

So I've been out and about all day today attempting to avoid actually being outside during the crazy storms and tornados. It's been one of those days. Just thought I share some of the moments today that just made me have to wonder.

First - in the "you know environmentalism is a fad when..." category.

Target is selling this "Green is Good t-shirt" -

What gets me is that the claim to caring for the environment is printed using conventional toxic dyes on a shirt made of conventional cotton. Tons of environmentally unfriendly chemicals and pesticides were dumped into the environment to create the opportunity for trendy teens to expresses (boldly across their breasts) their deep commitment to caring for the environment. Did they ever stop to think?

Then in further environmental news - I was at Trader Joe's and of course had forgotten my nice reusable canvas bags yet once again. At the check out I asked the guy to not waste bags since I would just be transferring the food to the cooler in my car. He got really confused and didn't know what to do with my food. I asked him to just put it all back in the cart. At that point he said, "how about I just put it all in plastic bags." Because it is so common to not want to waste paper bags so that you can use plastic ones instead! I gave up and he packed it all in paper bags.

And finally in the "does this disturb you as much as it did me?" category, I saw this bumper sticker -

No wonder the world hates us. How can we continue to pretend that we are a "Christian" nation if this is our foreign policy? Forget loving your enemies, forget "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," who needs crap like that when we have a license to kill?

Anyway, can you tell I'm having a "what is this world smoking?" sort of day?

Bible Wars

2007-08-22T17:18:00.000-06:00

To add to my ongoing commentary on the nature of Biblical interpretation...

In preparing for my sermon on Luke 22, I've once again encountered the ubiquitous disagreements among the commentaries. You know, where people who all claim to have studied the same original languages, studied the same cultures, and read the exact same scriptures "as they are written on the page" present interpretations of the passages that completely contradict each other. In this case the question is whether Jesus was a pacifist or if he promoted violence based on Luke 22:36. A rather small insignificant issue of course. Both interpretations can be supported from the text and so that leaves us with alternative slightly less scholarly methods of assessing the inspired (supposedly inerrant) word of the Lord.

In this case that method involves outright insult. That's right, to prove that their interpretation is better than others the typical commentator on this passage resorts to insults. There are the basic insults that refer to those of alternate interpretation as "thickheaded" and their interpretations as "impossible." Then there are the ad hominem attacks that accuse those of alternate interpretations of having base ulterior motives for propagating their interpretation. I always find this one amusing given that I have heard it levied against the emerging church so often. The whole we must obviously be only motivated by licentious desires for promiscuous sex and partying thing. A really thoughtful way to engage with that which you disagree with if you ask me.

While the crap is being thrown from both sides, so far my favorite has been from the minority side which claims that Jesus supports violence. That commentator writes of his opponents - "They cannot stand the idea that we would be told to defend ourselves, our families, and our Christian brothers and sisters with swords or the modern day equivalents. Not being able to find any corrupt texts that left out the verse, and not being able to find any way to make the word for sword (makhaira) mean daffodil, bottle of Jack Daniels, lace panties, young male prostitute, or whatever else that they might want it to mean, they clutched at straws by trying to cancel the verse through perverting the meaning of the word 'enough'. This is a another great proof of how completely dishonest these snakes are, and it also shows that their claim to rely on a better understanding of the Greek is completely false." (emphasis mine). This was admittedly from a KJV only guy who describes his mission as - "the preceding is part of a series of examples of KJV verses that arrogant would-be scholars have tried to correct and showed themselves to be fools. These examples are for the benefit of those who would like more ammunition to defend God's Word against the attacks of the arrogant Bible "correcting" modernists. I hope that some of you find them useful."

Ah, isn't this what the Bible is all about?

Action Movies and Gender Roles

2007-08-21T20:40:00.000-06:00

So I actually got the chance to get out and see The Bourne Ultimatum. Fun movie, this one speaks to issues of our day but with a lot of crazy camera angles. One element that stood out to me was the implicit gender role assumptions present in the movies. In the Bourne universe, the guys are always the kick-butt action figures. They are the ones with the skills, the ability to fight, and the driving urge to win. The women, although generally intelligent, are weak and in need of protection. In this latest installment the weakness of even the intelligent women in positions of power is preyed upon by the men's need to win. Granted in the end the "emotional weakness" of the women proved beneficial for they were the ones who demonstrated a conscience and chose to do what was right (as opposed to what gave them power). Although full of assumptions and stereotypes, I found it a telling commentary on the need for a balanced perspective that men in violent positions of power often lack.

But I was also reminded in contrast of the typical role women play in action movies. Rarely are women recurring intelligent characters. Instead women are often portrayed as the kick-butt hero who is exceeding sexy. The appeal is the sex factor and the novelty of a woman doing what is assumed to be a man's job. Far more common though are women as helpless, disposable, ~~love interests~~ sex objects. They add some emotional content to the plot, stretch the story a bit, but mostly serve as eye-candy. And there is a new pretty face of the moment by the time the sequel comes out. I remember as a kid wondering what happened to the female characters in movie sequels. Why did Indiana Jones have a "new girl" in each movie? Are women really that worthless that they can be discarded at will?

I do see some changes beginning to occur (not that I watch all that many movies). Sometimes the love interest is drawn out over multiple movies (Spiderman or Pirates) - but this may be more the result of studies signing multiple movie deals upfront than a step towards equality. And I've heard a rumor that the new Indiana Jones movie is bringing back the woman from Raiders of the Lost Ark (not that I even remember her name). We shall see. I know one really shouldn't expect much from action movies, but I get sick of constantly seeing negative stereotypes being reinforced in the name of entertainment. Of course there are "intelligent" movies out there that do a much better job at demonstrating women as more than sex objects, but are those who could benefit from more respectful portrayals of women really watching those movies?

Varuna, Paganism, and Numbers 5

2007-08-20T14:57:00.000-06:00

As I recently read Richard Foltz's Spirituality in the Land of the Noble: How Iran Shaped the World's Religions I came upon a paragraph that gave me pause. It was a short paragraph in the introductory section on the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) influence on the ancient Near-East, but it connected me to themes I have wrestled with for some time now. The paragraphs reads -

One type of pact performed by the PIEs was the mithra, a covenant between two parties, the other being a varuna or individual oath... In keeping with their belief about the supernatural inhering in abstract notions as well as in material things, Indo-Iranians personified the spiritual qualities (mainyus) of these verbal pacts as powerful and important dieties. The veracity of one's oral proclamations could be put to the test, through fire ordeal in the case of mithras ans water in the case of varunas, which may explain why Mithra and Varuna, who were responsible for sparing the truthful and punishing the unworthy, became such important gods.

Now I was familiar with Mithra - he only became a major deity in a number of the cultures influenced by the Indo-Europeans as they spread across the ancient Near-East. You know stuff like being subsumed into Zoroastrianism as the savior figure who was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave witnessed by shepherds. But this was the first I had ever read of the ancient concepts of oath taking that evolved into personified deities. I was especially intrigued by the water ordeal to test the veracity of a personal oath. Apparently this ordeal involved either immersing a person underwater (if they survived they were innocent) or forcing a person to drink the "golden oath water" which brings out the truth by causing jaundice. An ancient practice common in the cultures that settled the ancient near-East, predating Zoroaster, Moses, and possibly Abraham.

Why did this brief paragraph give me pause? Because it addressed the cultural underpinnings of a Biblical practice that I have struggled to understand. When I first encountered the description of "the test for an unfaithful wife" as described in Numbers 5:11-31 I was appalled. Here is a ceremony that reeked more of magic than faith and seemed to be extremely arbitrary and unfair to the woman. I just could not understand how this was a God given law. To have a woman whose husband was jealous drink a strange mixture and if she was guilty she would waste away and if she was innocent she could have children didn't fit even within the Old Testament worldview I knew. I recall being involved in numerous discussions about this particular passage a few years ago. Many people took the - "it's in the Bible so God must have put it there so I can't question (or be bothered by) it" route. Others tried to reinterpret it as being a completely meaningless ritual that could never work and would therefore always prove the women innocent. God obviously couldn't change the culture and stop making men be jealous and possessive of women, or improve conditions for women who are thrown out or stoned for adultery (or suspicion thereof), so he gave the Jews this pointless test to protect women - just another way that God is actually pro-woman. But it still didn't make sense.

So I find it helpful to see that this practice has its roots not in some God given new mandate, but in the common cultural rituals of the lands the Jews inhabited. Of course it seems magical and pagan because that is what it is. That leaves the issue for those who do think the Bible is inspired to understand why God would want his people using a ritual that derived from animistic deities. But even still, I find the ideas of this being a "redeemed" practice less disturbing than the assumption that this is a God given practice. But maybe that's just me coming to terms with letting go of my evangelical conceptions regarding scripture.

Historical Point of View

2007-08-19T15:38:00.001-06:00

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

I have that quote on the water bottle that I carry around everywhere. It summarizes what I've been learning over the last 5 years or so and is a good reminder as to how I should be engaging with the world. Plus it's a Star Wars quote (need I say more?).

My reading over this past week has forced me to recall that quote numerous times. This sounds pathetic, but I really have never studied history outside of the Western/Christian mindset (and I majored in history!). My studies focused on European and American history or on other parts of the world as they related to Europe and America. Beyond that, most of my studies (academically and personally) were done to understand the roots and development of the Christian faith. That included studies of Egypt and the Ancient Near-East that were done only to gather trivia to shore up my belief that events in the Bible really happened the way the Bible presents them. My point of view determined what I studied and how I interpreted the facts once I encountered them. In all a very narcissistic approach to history.

Within my myopic interest in history, I recently started reading about the Zoroastrian influence on Judaism and Christianity (which is absolutely fascinating by the way, more on that another day). But in the process, I have started reading histories of Iran and the Proto-European Aryan tribes which is something I have never done before (honestly, what schools teach the history of Iran, the ancient history of Iran?). So in the process I am encountering history done from point of views that I knew were out there, but never took the time to explore before.

But beyond my being reminded of my narrow view of history, I have been amused by the historical points of views of others. Amused not in an attempt to ridicule others, but in seeing in other cultures the same ignorant syncretisms we find so common in our own. For while I have known about how most of our Christian holidays are just baptized versions of older Pagan celebrations (not that I find anything wrong with that), I never thought about that happening in say, Islam. While I am familiar with the story of my own faith and (some of) its evolution through time, I guess I always viewed Islam as more rigid and static. But to see cultural examples among Iranian Muslims of Zoroastrian influence took me by surprise (while it retrospect it should have been obvious). New Year festivities that have no root in Islam, wedding traditions that still involve fire ceremonies, and Mosques that have Zoroastrian symbols (this is Islam remember) on them - and all of them have been "baptized" with Islamic meaning. To them it is just another part of "orthodox Islam" and how dare anyone suggest otherwise (while the government continues to stamp out such practices...).

Our stories and perspectives on history are influenced by what we already believe and expect to discover. Our myths of nationality and religious superiority crumble under the slightest soundings of history. Not that it's our faith that is changed (usually), but it is how our faith colors how we see everything else. As I continue to read about Zoroastrian influences on my faith (especially on the eschatological perspective), I am reminded that there are those out there who would be eager to discover "pagan" roots for Islam (in order to further criticize and dismiss it), but who will refuse to admit the cultural influences on Christianity. How we view our faith and how we view history depends greatly on our point of view.

Personality

2007-08-17T21:54:00.000-06:00

So I got to spend the day wandering around a Pioneer Farm/Fun Park with a bunch of toddlers. With train rides, hay rides, and other such activities the kids had a great time. Emma decided that she liked the fake horse on the carousel better than the real pony ride horse (the carousel one apparently goes up and down in addition to going round and round) - it was a tad disturbing. So then I just got to spend a full two hours trying to get the overtired little one into bed (an hour later she is still singing songs to herself). So given that my brain is on full mush mode and can't think of any of the stuff I meant to write tonight, I'll finally get around to doing this personality test thingy I've been seeing everywhere.

Different questions than I typically encounter, but the results are the same. While I was still in school I always tested as an INFJ, but since leaving the structured world of education I have consistently scored as an INFP. "The Dreamer. INFPs are introspective, private, creative and highly idealistic individuals that have a constant desire to be on a meaningful path. They are driven by their values and seek peace. Empathetic and compassionate, they want to help others and humanity as a whole. INFPs are imaginative, artistic and often have a talent for language and writing. They can also be described as easygoing, selfless, guarded, adaptable, patient and loyal." Accurate in many ways although that last sentence sounds more like they are describing dogs instead of people.

According to their stats, my personality is the same as the fictional characters of Anne of Green Gables and Dr. Julian Bashir of Star Trek: DS9 (my favorite ST character ever) and historical figures such as William Shakespeare, A.A. Milne, Mr. Rodgers, J.R.R. Tolkien, and apparently Mary mother of Jesus (how they figure that is beyond me). And for those of you who know him, I had to laugh that Mike's (INTJ) was the same as Gandalf and C.S. Lewis. And according to my multiple intelligences apparently my career choices should be Psychologist, Philosopher, Writer, or Theologian. Interesting.

Eating Ethically

2007-08-16T09:05:00.000-06:00

I just finished reading The Ethics of What We Eat by Peter Singer and Jim Mason. Even though the book deals with issues that I already cared and knew something about, I was still overwhelmed and greatly challenged by what they wrote. I'm still processing most of it and examining my philosophy of ethics in response to the really hard questions they ask in the the book. This is a disturbing and necessary book. If we are to be truly ethical people, our ethics must apply to how and what we eat. I think this book should be required reading for anyone who, well, eats food.

To comment on one small aspect of the book - the general complaint that to eat ethically (or healthy for that matter) is just too expensive. The average person can't afford to be ethical excuse. Here are a few quotes from the book that put that into perspective -

"The cult of low prices has become so ingrained in the consumer culture that the deep discounts are no longer novelties. They are entitlements. Bargain-seeking seems to be such a basic aspect of human nature that to question it can appear quixotic. But... the bargains hide costs to taxpayers, the community, the animals, and the environment."

"Organic food costs more partly because ... intensive industrial agriculture leaves others to pay the hidden costs of cheap production - the neighbors who can no longer enjoy being outside in their yard; the children who cannot safely swim in the local streams; the farm workers who get ill from the pesticides they apply; the confined animals denied all semblance of a life that is normal and suitable for their species; the fish who die in the polluted streams and coastal waters (and the people who previously caught and ate those fish); and the unknown numbers of low-lying lands in Bangladesh or Egypt who will be made homeless by rising sea levels caused by global warming. It is understandable that people on low incomes should seek to stretch their dollars by buying the lowest-priced food, but when we look at the larger picture, the food produced by factory farming is not really cheap at all."

"Americans spend far less of their income on food than people in other countries ... we spend a smaller proportion of our income on food now than we used to - on average, only 6 percent of our total income goes toward buying groceries, down from 17 percent fifty years ago. In fact, we probably work for fewer hours to feed ourselves than people have anywhere, in all the millennia of human existence... if Americans want to eat better quality food, most of them have the means to pay for it."

"The price of food should reflect the full cost of its production. Then consumers can choose whether they want to pay that price. If no one does, the market will ensure that the item ceases to be produced. Meanwhile, if the method of producing food imposes significant costs on others without their consent - for example, by emitting odors that make it impossible for neighbors to enjoy living in their homes - then the market has not been operating efficiently and the outcome is unfair to those who are disadvantaged. The food will only be cheap because others are paying part of the costs - unwillingly. Any form of food production that is not environmentally sustainable will be unfair in this respect, since it will make future generations worse off."

Someone somewhere is paying the cost for low price. If we care about being ethical (instead of just saying screw you), we have to be willing to pay a fair price for our food. That may mean getting over our sense of entitlement to a certain lifestyle (meat at every meal, or even everyday) in order to afford better food. And it isn't just about passing the costs on to others, they do eventually catch up to people. Tax dollars that go to cleaning rivers, insurance costs that rise as more people get sick from the toxins used to produce our food. For example, I personally have spent thousands of dollars this past year (above insurance) to figure out what is making me ill (I have had a constant swollen throat for 7+ months). Having gone through the "it might be cancer" or it "might be this" tests, the thought is that since moving to a rural area, I have developed chronic allergies to the massive amounts of pesticides and fertilizers I am surrounded with. I am constantly sick so that cheap corn can be grown so Americans can eat more crap full of high fructose corn syrup. And I am just one small example of the collateral damage of cheap food where the full cost isn't assumed by the producer or the consumer but is passed on to others. Can we really be ethical and continue to do that?

Speaking of God

2007-08-14T18:13:00.000-06:00

In the recent discussion on Women in the Emerging Church, the issue of gender pronouns for God arose and I was asked to clarify my thoughts on that topic. I've discussed this issue often over at the Emerging Women blog and my contribution to the Faith in a Dress edition of the Porpoise Diving Life ezine provided a brief overview as well. But I've never really addressed it here on my personal blog. Why? Because this is an issue that freaks a lot of people out. They think that to even discuss this topic implies that one has left behind any traditional construction of Christianity. I thought that way for a long time. But this is a topic that is a given for many in mainline churches and has started to become a serious issue for women from evangelical backgrounds. I've been forced to wrestle through it. So to add another long and controversial post to this week's offerings (and in no way do I claim to even attempt a comprehensive treatment of this issue), here we go.

The issue at hand is the names we use to refer to God. The majority of the names we use as English speakers are gendered masculine. Although we are generally okay with some of the neutral names and metaphors for describing God, people often get very offended when God is referred to using the feminine names and images (even though such are present in scripture and church history). How we speak about God is a topic that has received a lot of attention recently. With Peter Rollins' well known book How (not) to Speak of God and Bruce Benson's lesser-known (but more in-depth) Graven Ideologies, the concepts of what we know about God and how we express that have become popular topics of conversation. The ideas those authors present (based on the implications of postmodern philosophers such as Derrida, Levinas, and Marion) revolve around the idea that any attempt to speak of God is idolatry - conceptual idolatry, but idolatry nonetheless. We are not God. To claim to know or understand (or even fully name) God is an act of idolatry. Since we cannot have absolute knowledge of God (that would in fact make us God), we attempt to describe God using the things we know (language, images, metaphors). All of those attempts at comprehending that which cannot be comprehended must be held lightly. Any attempt to assume that our names or metaphors for God actually define God become idolatry. We start to worship our idea (name, image, metaphor) for God instead of actually worshiping God. Of course we cannot not speak of God, so we must make use of metaphors and names. The Bible is full of descriptions for God - some we have turned into names but they are all simply descriptions of God - small attempts to understand aspects of the incomprehensible. Creator. Light. Shalom. Midwife. Provider. Father. Potter. Refuge. Sustainer. Mother. Healer... None of those names from scripture define God. To choose one as the God we worship is to choose to worship an idol of our own creation. But we use the multitude of names to describe God - to describe that which we cannot grasp but are compelled to worship.

To assume that God is gendered - that God is either male or female - turns God into an idol. God is neither and yet God can be described as both. Of all the ways that we speak of God this is the one that carries the most emotional weight. Rollins brushed aside this issue in his book, saying that it has already been addressed well by others. I found that infinitely frustrating because while this idea has been addressed extensively in mainline circles there is hardly anyone talking about it in evangelical and emerging circles. But to only see God as Father and to deny that God is also Mother not only ignores scripture and creates an idol in the form of a male, but it reinforces negative stereotypes about women. Why can't we discuss God's feminine characteristics? Is there something wrong with women? Are we inferior to men? Are we somehow more sinful or more sexual or less intelligent than men? If the metaphor of Father can be used for God what does it reveal about our underlying assumptions about women if we cannot also use the metaphor of Mother?

It is generally at this point that many people respond - "Of course God has no gender, and I see how feminine terms could be used to describe God, but I'm really just more comfortable continuing to use the male names and I don't want anyone to think I'm into that whole Divine Feminine/Goddess worship stuff that's so popular these days and it's not hurting anyone right?" But, would it change things to know that there are many many women out there who have rejected Christianity because all they see represented is a male God? They do not see themselves relating to a male God and they do not see themselves as being created in God's image if God is male. Then there are those women in the church who see themselves as inferior to men because they are female and are not made if God's image. The logic goes - if God is male then male must be better. I just finished reading a book, When God Was A Woman (full of serious issues, but interesting nonetheless) that is a diatribe against the domination of the Hebrews and their male God over the goddess cultures in the Ancient Near-East. This book is over 30 years old and is still considered a classic among feminsts. The gender of God is a big issue for a lot of people. My question is whether our comfort is more important than truth or more important than all those people who have rejected Christianity for unnecessary reasons?

This is a topic that I have personally struggled through over the last couple of years. I went from thinking that using feminine names for God was just a silly (and offensive) game for extreme feminists, to seeing the need to question my default names for God. This isn't just about equality, this is much bigger than that. It is about avoiding conceptual idolatry and naming God rightly (while being aware of the tension that we can never actually do so). To default to male names for God limits my understanding of who God is and unintentionally excludes some from the communion of believers. It isn't a game or a side issue or a red herring, it reflects the center of my faith - the God I believe in. It does take effort to not just use my default name for God (father). It isn't comfortable to say mother or healer. But I've realized that I have to - for my faith and for the faith of others. It's scary. It makes some people angry. But it also opens doors to those who have been left on the outside for far too long.

Synchroblog: The Narrow Door

2007-08-13T15:55:00.000-06:00

For August 13/14, 2007 Synchroblog titled Christianity: Inclusive or Exclusive?

Luke 13:22-30 (New International Version)

The Narrow Door
22Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"

He said to them, 24"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.'
"But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'

26"Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.'

27"But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'

28"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

When I preached on this passage last year as part of our journey through Luke, what struck me most were the wide variety of interpretations I encountered (and most everything here is gleaned from encountering and assimilating others). This passage is a battleground for drawing lines and telling the world who exactly is in or out of the Christian faith. The exclusivists rejoice that only a few will be saved (go to heaven) and the rest will perish (go to hell). But who the few are and what exactly comprises the narrow door differ from group to group. Some of the interpretations include to be a Catholic who takes Eucharist, or to invite Jesus into your heart, or to be saved in spirit and especially in Truth, or (for women) to bear children. Then there are the Universalist interpretations. They say that pretty much everyone gets into heaven. The narrow door for them is the way of love and universal acceptance. If you fail to love and think you get in because you belong to some elite club, you will be excluded – i.e. everyone gets in except the exclusivists. It's a game - whose definition of the door will win? How inclusive or exclusive is our faith? Who can we point fingers at and say "you're different, you're wrong, you're not welcome"?

But then we look at what Jesus actually says in the passage. The guy asked the question, then Jesus starts talking. Jesus starts off talking about a “narrow door” and about “many” who will strive to enter it and won’t be able to get in. His questioner probably would have liked where that was heading. He’s being invited to think of himself as an insider – a very select group of insiders. And those on the outside are left weeping and gnashing their teeth. The guy must be thinking, “This is sounding good.” Then Jesus flips the script as he is so prone to do. He talks about people coming “from east and west, from north and south” to eat in the kingdom of God. And he says that “the first shall be last and the last shall be first”; and I’m sure the guy is thinking, “not so good”. He’s looking for an either/or answer and Jesus gives him a both/and, while at the same time not really answering the question the way he wants him to at all. In fact, Jesus didn’t at first give numbers. He essentially said “Bad question. The real question is whether you are striving to enter through the narrow door.” Essentially, to quote Jesus’ words on another occasion, “What is that to thee? Follow thou me.”

But what if this passage is not talking about salvation from sin and going to heaven when we die? What if it's not about drawing lines and pointing fingers or deciding who is in or who is out? When the Jews of Jesus’ day talked about being “saved” it was in reference to being delivered from Roman oppression. They were looking for a Messiah who would come and lead a new Kingdom. The general idea was that the Messiah would use force to overthrow the Romans and establish a Kingdom of the Jews for the Jews and only the Jews. But Jesus’ recent comments as recorded by Luke didn’t really seem to support that idea. Jesus was calling for a way of peace and love – not violence and destruction. He made it sound as if his kingdom would be encompassing all sorts of people. And Jesus gave warnings that those who didn’t follow in the way of the kingdom – the way of love, peace, inclusion – would find destruction.

This passage, I think, is another of those warnings. The kingdom Jesus initiated is an upside down kingdom – it is counter-cultural. One has to be deliberate about following its ways – a better word would be strive or agonize. It would be easy to pursue other paths, to not care for what God cares about, to continue in the way of violence. But Jesus warns that the day of destruction will come and that for some it will be too late to choose the way of peace. Even if someone was a Jew who ate with Jesus and listened to him preach, they can’t be saved from destruction unless they enter through the narrow door and actually live in the ways of the kingdom. And he was right. The Jews didn’t choose the upside-down kingdom of love. They continued to rebel, and in AD 70 they saw their temple defiled and torn down, their city destroyed, and what was left of their people scattered. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth. The destruction of Jerusalem wasn’t a divine punishment. It was just the natural consequence of their actions (violent rebellion against empire). So were many or few saved from Rome? Jesus urged the Jew to strive hard to make sure he was saved – to fully follow Kingdom values. But because the way of peace was not chosen, the early Christian Jews were scattered and were able to bring the message of Christ and his kingdom to all the earth. So in the end many were saved and all the nations became part of the kingdom.

So instead of dwelling on who is in or who is our, instead of creating labels of exclusive or inclusive, why don't we try to follow Jesus' admonition to make every effort to enter in by the narrow door. To strive to live out kingdom values and to follow in the way of Christ?

Other Synchrobloggers on this topic:

Sally Coleman
Mike Bursell
Sonja Andrews
Sam Norton
David Fisher
Cobus van Wyngaard
Steve Hayes
Michael Bennett
Jenelle D'Allessandro
John Smulo

Women in the Emerging Church

2007-08-12T14:05:00.000-06:00

To clarify my post below and to address (some of) Brother Maynard's good questions (since this is way too long to post in the comments). Yes, the last post was a rant and therefore did make use of hyperbole. I know that there are men in the EC who do support women (and there are some who don't). But nevertheless there is still an ongoing perception by women that the Emerging Church doesn't support women. I've somehow stumbled into a strange position where I think I hear more about that than many people (which of course influences my perception). Because of my involvement with Emerging Women a lot of people seem to think I'm an authority on women in the emerging church. So I get emails, questions about women in the EC, confused inquiries about what is going on, and complaints, lots of complaints. Responding to the women who contact me is weird because I am not the authority (not that one exists) and the EC is such a fluid thing that one can never give a definitive answer for why things are the way they are. That being said, I do try to respond, but often in responding I feel torn. Half the time I do my best to defend the EC and explain that anyone who wants to step up to lead is more than welcome to and all that. But the rest of the time I find myself sympathizing with the frustration and confusion these women are expressing.

So what am I hearing and who am I hearing it from? First I should say that I have had good conversations with women in leadership within Emergent (all from mainline backgrounds) who don't think there are any problems at all. I respect their experiences, but also hear too much from women who do think otherwise. From other mainliners who have already been through the fight to gain respect as women in the church and who have pushed for inclusivity in the church, I hear a good deal of shock at how patriarchal the EC is. They only see male figureheads, male authors, male bloggers, male speakers, and worse yet only hear male language used in reference to believers and to God. To them that is really offensive and implies that women are not wanted or valued. They have been through the struggle before and as much good that they see in the EC, they aren't sure if its worth it to join in with a group that is so far behind in regards to women. Why go where they are "obviously" not wanted? Then there are the evangelicals. Many of those women are just beginning to believe that they can have a voice in the church and are still being met with much opposition in their churches and families. They want to find a place to belong in the EC because it has helped them so much, but are often afraid to join what looks like the typical boys club they are used to experiencing or are unsure if they are even welcome in that world. They want to know before they sign on that they will be accepted for who they are (and not condemned because they are female) and that the invitation to join is for them as well. So while the official message may be that yes of course women are respected and welcomed, if they do not hear that message or see it displayed (actually lived out) then they do not feel like they are wanted. This of course does not apply to all women interested in the EC, but is a theme I've heard too often to ignore.

So why isn't the message of welcome and inclusion being heard (if it does exist)? The most common answer still is because most of the authors and speakers are male - they are the voice that gets heard no matter who else is out there. Even at the recent Midwest Emergent Gathering where we attempted to be very deliberate about giving women a voice, the upfront presence was still predominantly male. And we got flack for it, big time. It's not that there is anything wrong with the male leaders, they are great guys who have taught us wonderful things and have helped us along on our faith journey. I personally greatly appreciate the work they have done and the contributions they have made. But as popular as they are and for as many people who are desperate to be mentored (in even the smallest ways) by them, we women don't have a place. We don't fit in with the boys clubs and the male bonding experiences (which is what even many public events seem to be). There are no female "heros" that self-identify as emerging that we can look up to and be mentored by. The names that women in the EC look to in respect like Anne Lamott, Phyllis Tickle, Sue Monk Kidd, and Diane Butler Bass do not (to the best of my knowledge) label themselves emerging. So if there is no one to mentor us in the EC (or even to guide and open the doors), then women begin to wonder why they should even want to be a part of it at all.

Then there are the negative messages that (often unintentionally) get sent. And yes like it or not, there are a number of people who still think Mark Driscoll is part of the EC. They hear his sexist comments and assume that the entire EC agrees with him. But less radically there are constant messages that tell women you are not wanted here (even when they do not intend to do so). When the two most popular blogs on the Emerging Church (Jesus Creed and TallSkinnyKiwi) have ongoing debates on not only whether or not women are permitted in ministry but which also imply that the jury is still out on whether women are inferior to men or if we are even made in God's image, the message gets sent (loudly) that we are not respected, valued or welcome in the EC. When, like at last year's Gathering (and I've heard of similar occurrences elsewhere), women plan a workshop and then a big name male plans the exact same workshop at the exact same time (which then everyone goes to), the message is sent - your voice is unwanted and worthless. When at the Off The Map Conference last year the panel of women leaders were set in front of the crowd so that they could publicly ask questions of the male experts the message is sent - you women are inferior to us men (and granted the conference planers there admitted what a disaster that session was). And when at just about every single emerging event, it is extremely rare to hear gender inclusive language, women who have become used to being included in the broader culture are left feeling very alienated. And I don't think anyone intends to send the message to women that they aren't welcome, but that is what is perceived at any rate.

And what helps complicate the negative (albeit unintentional) messages is the silence by the men, the "yes,but..." excuses, the vague talk about Biblical gender roles, and the lack of positive action. When certain prominent leaders take a stand against women, it takes other popular leaders speaking out against hate language for that message to be overpowered. Then, saying "yes, but..." to women is like sending the message that we aren't worth your time or energy. You want to help us, but it's too complicated and might take too much work. Instead of dwelling on all the problems that might possibly arise and using that as an excuse to inaction, could you please just give us your unequivocal support for once? And when you mention "gender roles" most women mentally download some version of the barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen scenario that has been drilled into us for years. Define what you really mean. And by the way most women do not want to be told what they should be like by a man. We want to be accepted for who we are no matter how closely we fit some system of culturally defined roles. Using language like that is patronizing and demeaning.

So what would actively working to improve things look like? A few biggies that might help - Make sure that women are asked to speak at your events. Get women publishing contracts. Work jointly with women on the big writing projects and event planning teams. Get used to using gender inclusive language. And don't always refer to God as male (not that you have to go so far as using the feminine names for God, just that you don't always default to the masculine). Add women to your blogroll. Discuss the ideas women are talking about on your blogs, in your sermons, and in your books. Stick your neck out and publicly stand up against sexism and demeaning language. Publicly admit that you respect women and support them in ministry for that matter. It isn't "affirmative action" or "lowering your standards" as I have heard it described. And some of it might sound silly if you do it already (but it obviously hasn't been heard). But it does involve being deliberate about being inclusive. And I know that there are a lot of guys out there who are doing this already. But when there is still an overwhelming perception on the part of women that they are not welcome more obviously needs to be done.

And I will say again, I am not the "authority" to address this issue. I'm just reflecting on my experiences and my somewhat unique position of hearing from a wide spectrum of women involved in the EC. Not all women feel this way or think there is a problem. I know that. But it is for the many that do, that I made the plea to the men of the EC to loudly and without reservation demonstrate their support for women in the Emerging Church.

To the Men of the Emerging Church

2007-08-10T09:14:00.000-06:00

So after reading Dave Fitch's article on why he isn't an egalitarian over at the Church and Postmodern Culture blog (and then Makeesha's great response), I am just left wondering what the deal is really with men in the Emerging Church. So you get these high profile men writing stuff that equality isn't biblical (but that they still support women in ministry) and that women should be allowed to live out their God given roles. One one level that might sound good, but it's just the same old oppression in a different packaging. Others tell me point blank that they won't waste energy working to help women in ministry because our ministry structures aren't biblical to begin with. So why waste time working to get women involved in a system that they are working to change? But the obvious problem is that the system is not changing, the boys keep it going as is, and the women remain on the sidelines. Others give an ample space for the fight over whether women are fully human on their blogs, but never really stick their necks out and actually support women. And then when certain leaders degrade and objectify women as mere sex objects, the men of the church remain silent or pat him on the back. WTF? This is the response we get from men in the Emerging Church.

What are you guys afraid of? Controversy? Having to share power? Having to talk to women? I just don't get it. When they say they "support" women, but don't actually ever do anything to about I have to question if they really do respect women. Are we just a nuisance that they can placate with kind sounding words? If they give enough platitudes and asides (I really do support women in ministry, really) will we shut up and pretend that everything is okay? I know a number of women who have given up on the emerging church as a joke because of the way women continue to be treated.

Hey boys guess what. We don't want to be treated like a piece of meat or piece of art. We don't want to treated like second class citizens and be endlessly tokenized or debated. We want to be a part of the conversation and respected for who we are. We can have our own conversations, but it would be really nice of you to make just the slightest effort to treat us as human beings and let the world know about it.

So what I would like to see is one, just one, male leader in the Emerging Church come out in complete support of women. No debating our worth. No stereotyping us into assumed roles. But complete and open support with a commitment to action to do whatever you can to help the women's voices be heard. That isn't too much to ask is it?

Poison Me Elmo

2007-08-09T09:00:00.000-06:00

If you are at all aware of the news or have children and have received emails from 50 different friends about it, you have heard about the recent recall by Fisher-Price and Mattel of over 1 million toys due to excessive lead content. Then today the Chicago Tribune reported on some toys that are just now being recalled even though the company has known for over 5 years that the lead content in them was 40 times the safe limit. I looked at the Fisher-Price list, given that most of the toys on there are Sesame Street and Dora toys, we own a number of the ones on it. But since we got them all before May 1, 2007, they are apparently perfectly safe. Sure, whatever.

One of the most common responses to my recent justice bra story was that it was absurd for me to care about chemicals used to make my clothing. The comments ranged from stating gross misconceptions like if we don't use fertilizers and pesticides people will starve to the old adage that everything causes cancer so why bother caring. The everyday exposure to dangerous chemicals has become so accepted that people no longer care. We expect it to be plastered all over the news if really dangerous stuff (lead in our child's Elmo karaoke machine) gets out. Then there will be an outcry, a full recall, and we can all be safe. No need to worry, no need to care. But as the book Fast Food Nation pointed out, just because there are no reports of danger does not mean the danger doesn't exist just that they aren't bothering to test for it. Which is what gives me so much confidence that our copious Elmo and Dora toys are "perfectly safe."

But how does one proceed? I don't think that I'm going to throw away Emma's favorite toys. And I know that there are tons of other unhealthy items in my home - toys and otherwise. But I am also not a fan of the type attitude that states, "well everything causes cancer (or whatever), so why waste your time caring?" If "everything" is harmful why in the world would I just want to expose myself (or my child) to as much of it as possible? Wouldn't it be smarter to avoid what can be avoided and advocate to reduce the use of poisons in other areas? There are alternatives and contrary to popular belief those alternatives aren't that hard to find (or that much more expensive). So perhaps getting rid of everything one already owns isn't the best response, but changing one's habits from this point forward is. It just takes being willing to stop exposing oneself to poison. But as I am discovering, that isn't something that most people are willing to do. It's too much work or something like that.

Christians Confess

2007-08-08T08:52:00.000-06:00

So Sonja tagged me for this meme which was begun by John Smulo.

The rules of the meme:

1. Apologize for three things that Christians have often got wrong. Your apologies should be directed towards those who don’t view themselves as part of the Christian community. Alternatively, apologize for things you personally have done wrong towards those outside of the church.
2. Post a comment at the originating post so others can keep track of the apologies.
3. Tag five people to participate in the meme.
4. If desired, send an email with the link to your blog post at the Christians Confess site, giving permission for your apologies to be added to the website.

So my three things that I've personally done and am sorry for -

I am sorry for adding to the Gospel and forcing people to become Republicans, or accept creationism, or stop being homosexual, or alter their physical appearance before they can love and follow Jesus.

I am sorry for acting like I know-it-all and have the corner on truth while making fun of people who have actually devoted their lives to studying things like the Bible, or science, or history.

I am sorry for manipulating your children into saying the sinner's prayer because I told them they would go to hell and be separate from you if they didn't.

And I tag -
PrincessMax
Karen
Jemila
Mike
Irim

Silly Picture Interlude

2007-08-07T15:07:00.000-06:00

So I'm working on some real posts, but first I have to ask if you think this is a new good look for me... :)

Emerging Church Demographics

2007-08-06T09:55:00.000-06:00

To address a question from one of the comments below. Is the emerging church just a generational thing? Is it just something for young people?

When the first stirrings of what has turned into the emerging church began, it was just about generational ministry. It was obvious that the church was missing an entire generation (which implied that the next generation would be missing as well). So people began to ask why Gen Xers had left the church and what it would take to bring them back. As usually occurs with such strategic plans, the initial answers were surfacy. Change the style of church to be relevant to that demographic. So churches abandoned the choirs and organs of the grandparents, the praise bands of the boomers, and went alternative. They added coffee and candles, brought art back into the church, and re-introduced liturgy to the low church. It helped bring some Xers back in, and really pissed off a lot of Boomers and older folks that church wasn't being done the way they liked anymore. Since when church becomes all about what one particular demographic likes it becomes about consuming a commodity and not about being the body of Christ. So went the ongoing worship wars that divided churches into generational clubs based on personal "worship" preferences. It wasn't intergenerational. It was selfish. And yes some "emerging churches" stayed in this realm and are just about relevant worship. Others perhaps get labeled that, but are really much much more.

But some of the initial voices in the EC soon realized that there was a greater cultural shift occurring in our culture. People were moving from the dominant philosophy of modernism to the dominant philosophy of postmodernism. It wasn't about choosing the believe in such a thing, it was the general air that we were breathing - the culture that shaped who we were. Granted, higher percentages of younger people were more immersed in postmodern thought than older people, but it was a culturally pervasive thing. That made a lot of people think about how our assumptions about how we do church were influenced by our cultural philosophy. And then even to think about how our theologies were influenced by such philosophies. So yes, church eccessiology started to be questioned. The habits and trappings of church were questioned. And many began to take a historical perspective on the interpretation of scripture and examine how culture has influenced how we read the bible. Things started to change and it involved people of all generations.

So for example, in our small church plant we have representatives from 8 different decades (and aren't too heavy on the under 35 group either). Church isn't about reaching a certain demographic, but we still do things differently than many churches. We "worship" with hymns, praise choruses, art, dance, liturgy, lectio divina, walking labyrinths, and prayers of saints ancient and modern. We understand that the sermon is the least effective form of teaching. So we open the teaching time up to discussion. People ask questions, challenge interpretations, and contribute examples. So instead of the pastor contriving examples that generally work for middle age men (golf, sports, retirement plans...), the church becomes involved in understanding how the scriptures fit into their lives. "Elders" and intergenerational learning isn't contrived or hierarchical, but just part of what it means to all interact together and be a church family. Of course its not perfect and really freaks some people out. Some show up expecting to just sit, watch a show, and "be fed." We don't think that is what church is about at all. And apparently people of all ages seem to think similarly.

So yes, there are emerging churches that consist of college students being college students. Just like there are seeker sensitive churches full of Boomers and traditional churches full of the elderly. Then there are churches with people of all ages that look new and different. There are traditional mainline churches that are embracing emerging theology and worship ideas. For many it is about new way of doing church, exploring theology from a broader perspective, and being the church as opposed to having church imposed upon oneself. And it involves people of all ages. I would recommend that the stereotype of the EC being just for gen Xers be dropped, and people take the time to see what is occurring within this very diverse movement.

Me

2007-08-03T19:51:00.000-06:00

Okay so Mike's computer crashed and is being repaired for the next few weeks... So that means he is using mine all the time now for work. That means I will be limited in blogging, email, and all that other fun stuff. (maybe I'll actually get other stuff done...). and I've got a booth to sell my quilts at a local fantasy faire this weekend. All that to say I may be a bit scarce for awhile. but Mike promised he'd share, so we'll see...

Faith, Certainty, and Tom Cruise

2007-08-02T09:32:00.000-06:00

A few days ago Erin put up a great post about "Things I Learned From Church (That Didn’t Prove True And What I Am Learning Lately)" It was part of a new synchroblog stared by Glenn Hager. As he describes the purpose of this blog - "I am tackling this issue not because I have an axe to grind with church as we know it, not because I am bitter, and not because I think people who are into attending and supporting conventional churches are inferior. Rather, it is to help me to understand my own thinking..." I was intrigued by the concept and have appreciated some of the posts the participants have put up so far. Then after reading Scot McKnight's post on certainty and faith yesterday I was reminded of an experience in my church background that I have since learned to regret.

I grew up in a traditional, conservative, Texas dispensational church (I'm sure they would merely call themselves a biblical church, but then again so would just about any church...). Most of my experiences there occurred in the youth group. But this was no games and cool music youth group. It was a sit and listen to hour long sermons, read lots of books, attend seminars, and make fun of those not like us type group. Being a Christian meant one crammed oneself with knowledge about the Bible (oh, and avoided sex at all costs as the youth pastor frequently reminded us by recounting his sinful youthful sexual exploits...). We had to know exactly how to argue people into the faith and how to show them that whatever they believed (be they atheist, pagan, catholic, or baptist) was completely wrong (implying we were completely right). I loved it. As an intellectual nerd who prided herself of getting good grades, this was a religion I could relate to. My "faith" was all about facts and knowledge. So while most of the youth group dreaded attending (their parents made them), I and my small group of friends loved being the know-it-all star Christians.

At one point when I was in high school (here comes the Tom Cruise part), the youth pastor choose a new motto for the group. Taken from the popular movie A Few Good Men (back when Tom Cruise still had a career and wasn't the Hollywood freak of the week), our rallying cry became - "it doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove!" We were treated to sermons about certainty and correct hermeneutics. We were told that if we do not have 100% certainty about our faith then we are not real Christians. Forget saying a prayer and accepting Jesus into one's heart, this was the gospel of intellectual works. Knowledge, evidence, and proof were what got one into heaven when we died (the whole point of Christianity of course). Belief and faith meant nothing, all that mattered was proof.

When I mentioned the new motto to a friend at school, he looked at me quizzically and asked me if such a stance undermined the whole idea of faith in the first place. I'm sure I parroted something about rationalism and absolute truth back at him at that point, but over the years since then I have come to see that he had a better conception of true faith than I did. I was Thomas demanding proof and not accepting that "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." I cared more about CSI style investigations and converting people to creationism than I did about actually serving others or following Christ.

Now as the idea of certainty or absolute knowledge seems so utterly impossible I laugh at my arrogance in assuming I could ever grasp them. But it was a long journey to move to that point. My grip on certainty held me tighter than my grip on Christianity itself. I couldn't tell if I was more afraid to give up my philosophical system (which defined my religion) than I was to question my faith itself. Or perhaps, I just assumed that they were one in the same. That if I gave up trusting in certainty and empirical proof, I would no longer be a real Christian since I would then have doubts and incomplete knowledge. So the process of letting go was exceeding difficult, but I had to let go in order to discover faith. To discover the mystery and the trust that it takes to believe. To walk by faith not sight.

Now I am sure there are those that will mock me for not being a rationalist. Others who don't see room for doubt and faith in the Christian faith. Perhaps their experiences work for them. This is just my experience of what I learned from church that didn't prove true.

Adventures in Parenting

2007-08-01T08:32:00.000-06:00

On a perhaps not lighter, but at least different note...

So this is what it means to be a mom...

Yesterday Mike was watching Emma down in the basement while I got to take an uninterrupted shower. As I was getting dressed, I hear them come upstairs and Emma is screaming hysterically. I run out to find her wailing with her hands wrapped up inside of her shirt. Whenever she gets hurt she wraps up the hurt in a blanket or something, so I knew something must have happened to her hands. Mike had no clue what had happened. He had seen her pulling one of the toy bins off the shelf then hide her hands and start screaming. It took a long time for us to extract her hands as she thrashed, and kicked, and flailed about so as to ascertain that there were no visible cuts or bites. Had she broken something? Sprained something? I started rocking her and singing to her to calm her down. After about the 300th verse of Itsey Bitsey Spider, she fell asleep with her hands still clutched tightly under her shirt. She slept for a couple of hours and awoke still hiding her hand and refusing to let us see them. At this point I was wondering if we should go to the ER or something. Finally we tempted her with mac n' cheese and she eventually started using her hands again. We kept trying to ask her what had happened, but she wouldn't say anything. Nothing appeared to be wrong with her hands, so by this point we were really mystified. After lunch I tried to take her back downstairs to play and she freaked out again. knowing that something downstairs had hurt or scared her, (evil parents that we are) we picked her up and took her downstairs. Once down there, she crawled up on the couch, clutched her hands, and started screaming about a snake. We went to the basket she had pulled out earlier and sure enough there was a rubber snake in it. Mike had to make a big scene about getting rid of the snake in order to calm her down. She clung to me for at least an hour afterwards and continued to ask throughout the day if the snake was gone.

I have no idea what has caused Emma to have this intense fear of snakes. We were at the point of taking her to the ER because she was so hysterical about her hands not being touched. But it was all because she accidentally touched a toy snake. So is this a serious issue? Something she will grow out of? Oh my goodness it freaked me out. Oh the joys of parenting...

The Bra Issue

2007-07-31T08:46:00.000-06:00

It has been an interesting experience the past few days to read the reactions to the "My Search for a Justice Bra" article (posted here and here at the God's Politics Blog). There are a couple of things that I want to respond to here, but first the part that caused the most controversy - why did I write about bras for the whole world to see?

Most simply because it was true. It was a true story based on the fact that I really needed a new bra, but it became amusing because of the oddity of writing about a bra. I expected people to smile at the situation and move on. But that proved too difficult for some. Apparently there are a lot of men out there who have the maturity level of a junior high boy when the subject of women and their bodies is brought up (no offense to jr. high boys intended...). Bras are for breasts and the only purpose of those is for sex - or so some seem to believe.

I think I should clarify before I go much further. I have issues with the way the secular media and the Christian church have oversexualized the female body. Of course the body has sexual aspects, but that is a limited and not holistic view. Our bodies are wonderful creations that should be appreciated and cared for. Too often we see them only as shells to be starved and carved into cultural definitions of sexual attractiveness. If the natural functionings of the body don't aid our sexiness, we hide (or seek to eliminate) them. As discussed recently over at Emerging Women, our menstrual cycles have become a thing to be feared and despised rather than celebrated and accepted. Same thing with breasts. They have become so associated with being a sex object that their natural function for breastfeeding has become taboo for many. Hence the issue with bras. For me a bra is just a part of everyday life. Oh, yes, they can serve a sexually charged function, but as one of the basic everyday parts of life I found it appropriate to see if I could bring environmental stewardship and ethical consumption into that area of my life.

But as a few of the reactions to the story demonstrate, there are some who do not think such a thing is possible. Oh there were those who resorted to cleavage and support jokes - lighthearted attempts to deal with the uncomfortable, but there were others who assumed that I could not possibly be serious about justice issues because I was talking about a bra. Some went so far as to claim that I was a right-wing critic who must be making fun of people who care about justice since I dared to talk about bras. Apparently anything remotely sexual cannot be taken seriously. (which is kinda the whole problem with women only been seen as sex objects and therefore not being taken seriously...).

The point of my search for a justice bra was to see if I could live holistically. To see if I could care for the environment, care for the poor and the oppressed, and be a conscientious consumer. Doing such things requires one to be aware - to consider where and how plants are grown, to think about the long term impact of dyes on the environment and our health, to care for the people who had to work with those chemicals or make my clothes. Our food and clothing does not magically appear in the stores - it all has a story, often a tragic and painful story. Being aware of that story and seeking to improve it is just part of what it means for me to let Christian values influence all areas of my life. But I also see living holistically to include accepting and being comfortable with my body. To care for its needs and not to fear the parts that men have defined in ways that divorce them from their natural function. I do not want to clothe myself with harmful chemicals or dump unnatural hormones into my system. I also don't want my body to be commoditized by men who think it is only useful as a sex object. So I will not shy away from discussing natural and normal aspects of life. And that includes bras.

Seeking Justice Intimately Part 2

2007-07-30T13:47:00.000-06:00

Part 2 of My Search for a Justice Bra is up over at the God's Politics blog if you are interested in reading the conclusion to the story! (read Part 1 here). I'll post some of my responses to the comments here tomorrow.

Motivation or Ridicule?

2007-07-30T11:19:00.000-06:00

So the blog buzz over the weekend were the anti-emergent motivational posters and then Emerging Grace's beautiful response. She took what was an attempt to tear down others, and focused on the true message of the gospel. I found the anti-emergent set to be disturbing and cruel and not just because I disagree with the sentiments they express. Some of them just completely miss the point of the emerging conversation which I hope is the result of ignorance and not malicious misrepresentation (one can always hope right?), but others demonstrate seriously harmful attitudes of prejudice and intolerance. While of course many who like these posters are the types that uphold intolerance as a Christian virtue (its all about the hate man), they so miss the point of the Christian message it's not even funny.

For example the following two posters were created to ridicule emergent and anyone who is not a middle aged white middle class yuppie -

The unspoken assumption that those people are crazy, they are wrong, and that they need to change is heartbreaking. It made me recall a few years ago on The Ooze when I got into an argument with one of the many men who post there in order to tell the rest of us why we are wrong. He was going off about how dress codes in schools are good things because khaki pants and polo shirts really are the most appropriate clothing for everyone. As he saw it, yuppie middle class white America males are the majority in the world and therefore make the most godly choices (flawless logic of course) . All people (of any culture or ethnic group) should emulate him in how they dress if they are to be good Christians. He was serious. And he got really pissed when I mentioned that his ideas were racist, classist, ageist, and sexist among other things. It's great if he personally wants to dress a certain way and worship a certain way, but to assume that we all have to become like him in order to be real Christians is not only absurd but it is hurtful to the millions of people who don't fit inside his myopic view of Christianity. To say that the people in these posters cannot really have an authentic relationship with Jesus until they change their appearance and taste in music is one of the most sad warpings of the Gospel I have ever heard.

I love the poster Emerging Grace created in response -

If the Gospel is truly good news, then it is good news for this person right now. Not after he gets his life straight and comes to church looking like he just came from the golf course, but right where he is at. And the gospel is good news for people no matter the length of their hair, the number of piercings or tattoos the have, or if their clothing is made from hemp or stain-resistant wrinkle free cotton/polyester blend. The gospel is relevant to all people. That is the message of Jesus Christ, so its really no big surprise if it happens to be the message of some in the emerging church (or anyone in the entire history of Christianity for that matter).

So Pyromaniacs and Ken Silva can use the emerging church as the butt of their jokes if making fun of people is what entertains them, but I want to go on record here in asking them to stop making fun of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A Day at the Faire

2007-07-29T16:23:00.000-06:00

Yesterday we made our yearly pilgrimage to the Bristol Renaissance Faire. We went this year with a group from church since it is always fun to dress up and go with friends. This faire in one of the largest in the nation and is located in a permanent village on the Illinois/Wisconsin border. There are of course tons of shops selling everything from swords, costumes, and jewelry to flying broomsticks, pet griffins, and chainmail bikinis. But there is also all sorts of entertainment. We've seen the joust, sword fights, and mud show enough times, so we now go to watch the musical groups (a bagpipe and drum troupe, lute and flute troubadours, Celtic harpists, and hammered dulcimer players) perform throughout the day. The woodland fairies are always fun to watch (including a faun this year) and there's a new acrobatic group that did amazing fire stunts. And then there is the food. Fish and Chips, turkey legs, veggies tempura, cheese balls, crepes, gelato... not exactly period food, but seriously yummy nonetheless. Oh and did I mention the honeymead...

Anyway, we of course always enjoy the Faire, but this was also Emma's first year to really get it. She loved it. From playing in the Kid's Kingdom (a castle and pirate ship complete with Faire actors playing games and telling stories for the kids) to watching the jugglers and stiltwalkers, Emma had a fantastic time. I mean, she got to dress as a Fairy Princess, carry a wand around all day (we are still trying to get her to say Wingardium Leviosa), play with fairies and Knights, dance to fun music, and eat ice cream - what more could a toddler want. What's funny is that I really don't know if she understands that the Faire isn't normal. Of course it was a special day, but what really would be strange about running into princesses, fantasy creatures, and castles to her? It happens all the time on Dora. Yesterday it just finally happened to her.

So we had a very happy Emma at the Faire. Especially when she got to dance. My favorite part of the Faire has always been the drum circle that occurs at the end of the day. Out on the great lawn, it is a primal dance to the wild beat of drums. I always find it to be a worshipful experience full of uninhibited expression. Emma apparently felt the same way. She joined the dance with the passion and frenzy only a two year old can have. In that moment she represented an expression of perfect joy in life. Now that is true worship.

In all it was a good day at the Faire.

On Sacrifice, Repentance, and King's Cross Station

2007-07-28T00:01:00.000-06:00

Warning, Disclaimer, etc... I waited a week. Exactly a week. If for some strange reason you have not yet finished Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows stop reading now. This post contains my thoughts on the themes present in the final book and therefore contains spoilers. Consider yourself warned.

As we finally hold in our hands the complete saga of Harry Potter what we find is not just an entertaining story of young witches and wizards coming of age in a parallel world to ours, but a beautiful story of repentance, love, and redemption. A lot has been said about these books not being great literature, but that really just misses the point. They are good stories that tap into the mythic nature of life and give us an imaginative retelling of the most common (and hence most visceral) story known to man - the sacrificial death and resurrection of the hero.

At one point in the book, Harry visits Godric’s Hollow, his birthplace, and goes looking for the graves of his parents. In the graveyard he stumbles upon the graves of Dumbledore’s mother and sister. On their tombstone is the verse "where your treasure is there will your heart be also." Rowling deliberately refuses to explicate its significance at that point, but in it I see the theme of the whole series. What is a person's treasure? What is their heart's desire (as the Mirror of Erised revealed in the first book)? This is the theme that is repeatedly returned to throughout the series. We see characters that are hungry for power and wealth (Voldemort, the Malfoys) or for personal safety (Dumbledore's brother). Those "treasures" define their entire life. In Harry we see a boy who starts out desperately wanting a family and a place to call home gain and lose that over and over again. And it is only when he let's go of his desires (for family, for revenge, for home) and places the needs of all others before his own that he sees clearly what must be done to save the world. It is this overcoming of selfishness that marks the process of redemption for many of the characters in the book. In small ways they let go of selfish treasures they had been hording and take steps towards loving others more fully. Lupin overcomes his lifelong fears of hurting others to give Tonks and their child the love they need. The Malfoys, hurt and discarded in their attempts to gain prestige, money, and power, find that what really matters is family (a sentiment they had always ridiculed the Weasleys for). Even Dudley Dursley moved from being utterly self-centered to acknowledging that he needs Harry. They all had to sacrifice a part of themselves to become better people.

Two characters in the book though chose to give up everything for the sake of others. Like his mother before him, Harry realizes that in order to save those he loves he must be willing to give up his life. So to answer the question of whether Harry lives or dies, one can only answer yes. Harry, fully aware of the only way Voldemort can be defeated, willingly gives himself over to be sacrificed by the enemy. In a scene that recalls Aslan at the Stone Table, if not Golgotha itself, Harry offers up his life for the salvation of others. This sacrifice out of love stands in direct contrast to how Voldemort "sacrificed" parts of his life. Voldemort gave up parts of his soul (for Horcruxes) in desperate attempts to cling to power and overcome death. His sacrifices sprung from selfish ambition and not love and so each subsequent sacrifice made his life more miserable and helpless. So much so that even in the end, when faced with death and offered the chance to repent, he chose to cling to evil and power and remain in that misery.

But what of our sacrificial hero? Here we are treated with a scene that seems to come straight out of C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce or The Last Battle (Rowling has said all along that Narnia was her inspiration for these books). After being attacked by Voldemort, Harry awakes to find himself in ~~a dark wood~~ a mystical version of King's Cross station (talk about amazing metaphorical allusions) where he encounters his mentor and guide ~~Virgil~~ Dumbledore. Here he discovers that what Voldemort has killed in him is the evil part of Voldemort's own soul (represented as a crying baby). So instead of taking the heavenly Hogwart's Express further up and further in on the next great adventure for the organized mind (as Dumbledore had once referred to death), Harry returns to life to finally defeat evil once and for all. What I love is that it is at this point that Harry having already demonstrated sacrificial love offers Voldemort the opportunity to repent and feel remorse. As Harry offers him a choice and seeks to merely disarm Voldemort of his evil intentions, it is Voldemort's ultimate arrogance and refusal to repent that destroys him as his own killing curse rebounds. Our hero has sacrificed himself, conquered death, and lives happily ever after.

Oh yes the book held other gems in storytelling and was a very satisfying conclusion to the series. I applauded Snape's vindication. I cheered audibly as Mrs. Weasley took on Belletrix and Neville proved himself to be a true Gryffindor by pulling Godric's sword out of the sorting hat to slay Nagini. I cried as beloved characters died at Hogwart’s last stand. Rowling crafted an entrancing story and amazingly managed to tie up every loose end. I love this series as a story, but I resonate with the themes of sacrifice, redemption, and love that tie the stories together. Having defended the books for years to Christians who feared the magic, the wands, and all the "trappings of a world in which they do not believe" (who all the while promoted the "Christian" values of Narnia and Middle Earth), I restate my opinion that they owe Rowling an apology. For while the Harry Potter books aren't just Christian books (they can be enjoyed by people of all faiths or no faith), they echo the most central tenets of our faith. The allegory of the resurrection, the call to sacrificial love, and the reminder that for where our treasure is there will our hearts be also are themes that all Christians should be able to embrace. It isn’t perfect theology or a one for one allegory, but it is a good story. For in the retelling of our deepest and most mysterious truths Rowling has ultimately cast a goodspell.

This Blog has been Rated...

2007-07-27T09:42:00.000-06:00

I came across this blog quiz and thought it looked fun. So apparently my blog is rated -

Mingle²

The most amusing part about this is that the assessment was determined based on the presence of the following words on my blog: * hurt (3x) * pain (2x) * steal (1x). Really bad stuff there. It reminded me of those parental movie review sites (like Screenit) that list for concerned parents every curse word, innuendo, short skirt, disrespectful attitude, or "liberal value" (like environmentalism) present in a given movie (so that they don't have to profane their minds by actually engaging with it or something like that). It's the type thing that gives great movies that deal with deep spiritual themes negative ratings because some woman in it has a low-cut top on. Stuff like this gets classified under my heading of further adventures in missing the point (with apologies to McLaren and Campolo).

Where does this (generally Christian) tendency to focus on the trivial instead of the meaningful come from? Why do we care so much about silly thinks like language (omg she uses the word "pain") and how people dress and completely ignore the extreme injustices in the world? Like how Christians got behind efforts to boycott Abercrombie and Fitch because good looking guys in their catalogue weren't wearing shirts but who could care less that the clothes were made in sweatshops. Apparently American Protestant immaturity and inability to have a healthy acceptance of our God given bodies takes precedence over the lives of underpaid, overworked, and exploited laborers (who often have to deal with real sexual exploitation). I just don't get it. How did our priorities get so messed up and far away from the kind of lifestyle Jesus called us to? When will we care more about rating exploitation, sex slavery, and starvation as not suitable for anyone instead of freaking out if the new Disney movie has a character that might be gay?

So here's to doing what I can to deal with the real crap in the world and to laughing at the labeling of such as being inappropriate for certain audiences (and to wondering what random words I need to include to bump my rating up to 'R').

Article over at God's Politics Blog

2007-07-26T10:35:00.000-06:00

If you are regular reader here you are probably used to my ramblings on trying to be an an ethical consumer. It's something I am just beginning to explore and figure out for my life. Well earlier this year I embarked on a quest to try to purchase an ethically made bra (yes, I said bra). The process was humorous in many ways and taught me a lot about justice as it relates to retail. I wrote about the whole experience and Part 1 of my story has just been published over at the God's Politics Blog (Part 2 should be up on Monday). So head over there, read the story, and add your comments (and yes I did expect the cleavage jokes). Enjoy!

Experiential Worship vs. Simple Living

2007-07-24T21:43:00.000-06:00

During the Midwest Emergent Gathering, I got to attend most of Lilly Lewin's workshop on creative worship. I am fascinated by what she does and how she uses art to help people connect with God. I wish more churches could learn from her and incorporate experiential worship into their services. We learn more and make deeper connections when we are engaged in experiences that engage our whole self instead of just passively sitting and listening to a person preach. And she helps people enter into experiences where that can happen.

All that said, as she spoke I found myself torn between conflicting ideals. One of the most common elements of experiential worship is that of giving a person a physical object to touch that relates to whatever the point of the lesson is. So as Lilly suggested, let people eat Swedish fish or goldfish as you talk about Jesus providing the disciples with fish. Or hand out cotton balls or foam cut outs - whatever can be tied into helping people remember what they are hearing. It works - it generally works quite well. The physical objects drives the abstract thought home and serves to help a person remember what they have heard. Of course that isn't the only (or best) form experiential worship takes, but it is an easily employed technique. What bothered me was how it seemed at odds with simple living.

I guess what I am wondering is if one is striving to live simply and ethically (i.e. not over consume, respect the environment, buy fairly traded items) would being able to better understand and remember a concept be a sufficient enough excuse to collect piles of junk. As Lilly mentioned (and as a former children's pastor I can attest) all those little take aways collect on your desk, the bottom of your purse, or in the back of some drawer. Lilly saw that as a collection of good memories and meaningful lessons, but try as I might I have a hard time seeing them as anything other than clutter and junk. I don't want my life filled with items made from petroleum products in a sweatshop in China that take up space and increase chaos (I have way too much of that already). I don't think that I can see something like that as an aid to worship.

But then the question gets raised - where do I draw the line? So perhaps a little plastic cross is unnecessary, but what about a stained glass window, or a cloistered garden, or an art installation? I take pleasure in such things and often see them as an aid to worship. Or what about having children making bricks as they learn about the slaves in Egypt or building a manger for a Christmas play? What about the Christmas tree itself? What is really necessary? What can be justified? Should it have to be justified?

I have never considered myself an iconoclast. I have no problem with the idea of letting art and beauty move us into worship. But I am beginning to feel uneasy with the consumeristic nature behind such things. I guess I am seeking a balance for myself here. I am not ready to throw out art or other aids to worship in favor of barren striped down intellectual encounters with God, but I am seeking a form of justification. I love music and art (and most other new forms of experiential worship), but I am struggling with supporting the expense (in the broad term). Is there a way to enjoy and employ such things justly? I know this issue has been a constant struggle for the church as a whole, for while some found the great cathedrals to lift them into rhapsodies of worship, others saw the golden trappings next to the starving masses and walked away from the faith. Is it all worth it? Can it be justified? And where is the balance?

I have no answers. I am just beginning to ask the questions. Have others struggled with this? What have you learned in that struggle?

Spoiler Alert

2007-07-24T09:26:00.001-06:00

Thank you to Bob Carlton for making my morning with that one. I promise I'll start posting real stuff sometime soon...

The Conference (briefly) and The Book (no spoilers yet)

2007-07-23T08:53:00.000-06:00

I am exhausted.

We had a great time at the Midwest Emergent Gathering. At least from a planners perspective everything went smoothly. Since I didn't participate as an attendee, it is hard to say what the feel and effect of the conference was to those really experiencing it. But I had a good time. I got to spend time with people I see maybe once a year and catch up with good conversation. I met new friends and am looking forward to continued dialog with them. But we were busy, very busy. I got just a handful of hours of sleep this past weekend. Mike has posted his summary of the weekend at his blog if you are interested in hearing all about what happened.

But of course tired or not I had to read Harry Potter. I started it at 5PM last night and didn't stop until I was done sometime after 3am. Loved it. Loved it. Loved it. It was satisfying in all ways. I think I cried for the last 300 pages or so (kinda hard not to when you read something like this when you are utterly exhausted and worn raw). I'll wait for now to post spoilery type things. But I do have to say that after this concluding book all conservative Christians need to make a huge apology to JK Rowling, lift the bans on the books, and give them a place of honor on the spiritual fiction shelf next to the Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings (where I've kept my set all along...). And although satisfying, it leaves one empty in a way to see the story end. I want to read it all again, to linger in the world a while longer. Maybe I'll read it again once Mike is done (he started it as soon as I finished last night, or early this morning I should say...). At this point I'm just waiting for someone else to finish it so I can discuss it.

So I'm physically and emotionally exhausted. But it was good.

Sorry for the silence...

2007-07-18T21:24:00.000-06:00

We launch the first ever Midwest Emergent Gathering tomorrow. I've been crazy busy getting ready for it. I'm looking forward to it, it should be a great time, but I'm also nervous and stressed out... So that's all to say sorry for the dead blog time the last few days and to say that there won't be much here for the rest of the week. And to be perfectly honest, as soon as the conference is over I will be diving straight into reading Harry Potter and not rejoining civilization until I'm done... So anyway we will return to the regularly scheduled ramblings next week.

Update to add this video, because it is awesome. :) It's a spoof the new Harry Potter movie used to raise awareness about the evil practices of Lord Waldemart (aka Wal-Mart).