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."

Labels: Book Reviews, Culture, Entertainment

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?

Labels: Church, Culture, Emerging Church

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.

Labels: Culture

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.

Labels: Culture, Gender Issues

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).

Labels: Church, Culture

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?

Labels: Culture

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?

Labels: Culture, Education

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.

Labels: Culture, Education

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?

Labels: Culture, Entertainment

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?

Labels: Culture, Ethical Consumption, Social Justice

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.

Labels: Church, Culture, mission, Theology

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.

Labels: Culture, Environment, Social Justice

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.

Labels: Culture, Personal

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.

Labels: Church Signs, Culture

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.

Labels: Church, Culture, parenting

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?

Labels: Culture, Environment, rants

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?

Labels: Culture, Entertainment, Gender Issues

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.

Labels: Culture, Environment, Personal, Social Justice

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.

Labels: Church, Culture, Emerging Church

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').

Labels: Culture, Entertainment, Social Justice