CCBlogs thinking critically, living faithfully

I mentioned in my last post that I am uncomfortable with the anti-globalization streams of social justice. These streams are so prevalent that many assume that unless one is ultra-pro-free-market capitalism, then one is by default anti-globalization. I personally think both extremes are flawed and fail to promote a compassionate worldview (not like most economists care about that anyway…). So to give a really short rationale for a really complex issue…

The anti-globalization argument generally points to the horrors in our global economy - sweatshops, slavery, environmental destruction - and proposes that if we just didn’t have a global economy then they would just all go away. Under the guise of “stop shopping” or “buy local” or “make something,” the mantra becomes - “boycott China, buy American.” Now I’m all for buying local and supporting small businesses. There are distinct benefits to doing so - like reducing fuel usage in shipping. But all too often these tendencies reveal a self-centered stance that places American interests before the interests of others.

I don’t see the solution to problems in the global economy as just doing away with the global economy. Like it or not we live in a global economy and that can never be undone. Organizations like the world Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund have pushed industry onto developing countries around the world. These countries can’t go back to their pre-industrial days nor do they have the option of organic development. They have been exploited through colonialism, pushed into industrial systems not of their making, and forced to abandon ancient practices. There is no going back. So to naively promote the idea of abandoning global industry in favor of only buying American is to wish a death sentence onto these countries. Abandoning them in the midst of a chaos of our making would destroy them. (apologizing and atoning for our sins is another issue entirely). In the business world national borders are losing significance quickly. To be so pro-America that our jobs and our economy matters more than every other person on this globe is inexcusable selfishness.

When faced with difficult issues, greedy businesses, and exploited people the solution is never to abandon the victims so that they get hurt more. All too often though this is the path that’s taken. A major company gets found out for using sweatshops so they respond by shutting the sweatshop down. Or someone hears about sweatshops, thinks such problems can never be solved and refuses to participate in the economic system altogether. Both approaches deny the reality of globalization and ignore the needs of the people. The point isn’t to take jobs away from people, but to improve the jobs they have. There are options besides exploiting/oppressing people and getting rid of their job. It may take some creativity and sacrifice (on our part), but reform is possible.

So I am really sick of the “let’s subvert the global economy” when that just means pretending it doesn’t exist and screwing the poor even further. As Christians we are called to love others and to care for the poor. We can’t settle for the popular options of letting them remain in hardship or causing them more hardship. Globalization exists and we have to deal with it. Preferably in ways that honor God and not just ourselves.

If you haven’t noticed recently it’s become really popular in emerging/missional/alternative church circles to to promote the whole Buy Nothing/Make Something Day. For the uninitiated, Buy Nothing Day is an alternative option to the shop on Black Friday hysteria that grips the nations every year. The idea is that one would opt out of this consumeristic ritual in hopes that this will encourage people to consume and waste less the entire season (and not just postpone their shopping). Others though move beyond the negative stance of Buy Nothing Day and propose Make Something Day. The idea is to still encourage gift giving, but to avoid buying new things and make handmade gifts instead.

On one hand, I like the idea. We are a culture obsessed with the new, constantly seeking more. Most people would rather buy say a whole new shirt than take the time to replace a missing button on an old one, much less make an entire gift. We as a culture have lost touch with the basics and instead support consumer practices that are destroying the environment and enslaving the poor. It is a broken system that needs healing. Make Something Day is a creative alternative to subvert the way things are in the world.

But I have a few problems with it (here’s where I get in trouble).

First - it doesn’t actually achieve its goals. Just because someone choose to make something doesn’t make them any less of a consumer. Most homemade gifts are not made from scratch. That yarn, or fabric, or beading, or rick-rack, or cookie dough, or whatever came from somewhere. Often the same sweatshop using corporate entities people are trying to sidestep in the first place. And as a crafter I have to come clean and say that crafting is just another way of consuming more - lots more. I have boxes and boxes of craft supplies in the attic. I have friends whose entire basements are filled with crafting stuff. I even had a friend in high school whose house’s second floor started to collapse because of the weight of the material from his mom’s quilting habit. Be it at JoAnn’s, Michaels, or Hobby Lobby crafting for handmade gifts is consumption plain and simple.

Second - if the idea is to produce less waste, why create useless crap that people feel obligated to keep because it is handmade? I’m pointing all fingers at myself on this one. I spent all morning making Christmas gifts with a super excited Emma who was extremely proud to tell me who was getting each particular gift (family members watch out!). I have a craft business, an Etsy storefront (shameless plug moment), and do the craft fair circuit. That being the case I would far rather give (and receive) something needed or desired than a handmade something just for the sake of something. I admit, I’m not a sentimental person. I’m not the type to keep a technicolor itchy afghan my grandmother knitted just because my grandmother knitted it. Call me heartless, but that’s the way it is. I described my gift giving rationale last year. Basically I try to shop for that which is wanted/needed - not making something, or buying something (even fair trade or organic somethings) just because. I’m a huge fan of wishlists in that regard. If someone wants a quilt, I’ll make it, but I’d rather give them a book (used is just fine) if that’s what they want. And if that book is insanely discounted on Black Friday, well, you get the picture.

Third - I am uncomfortable with the whole “make something to subvert the global economy” idea when avoiding the global economy is the driving force. I am all for economic justice and supporting local businesses, but that does not mean that I want to propmote a “me/America first” mentality that abandons the poor around the world. I am not anti-globalization - seeking justice that sacrifices the poor is not just. I’ll write more on this soon, but let’s just say that I am uneasy with underlying assumptions put forth connected to Make Something Day.

So these thoughts have been bugging me recently with every new reminder I get about Make Something Day. I like it and I don’t like it. If it works for you, really works for you, great. But I’m uncomfortable with it being the only “just” alternative out there. Once again this year I won’t be shopping on Black Friday, but I doubt I’ll be making anything either. I’ll be at the family ranch hiking, chatting with my Grandmother, drinking way too much wine, playing dominoes and scrabble, and smoking insane amounts of meat in the outdoor oven. It will be fun.

I have always hated the train illustration at the end of The Four Spiritual Laws. (okay so I have issues with the whole thing, but that’s beside the point). Placed at the end of the evangelistic tract, the train illustration tells us that the Christian life starts with the facts, in which we place our faith, and from which we experience feeling. We can live without feeling, but it should never be our main focus. I dislike the assumption that we are compartmentalized people that in truly modern fashion can step outside ourselves and objectively encounter religion sans emotions. It’s absurd on many levels, but a conversation I had the other day made me wish for a re-imagined version of this diagram.

At MOPs on Friday we had the once a semester evangelistic talk - i.e. the Gospel according to penal substitution. In our small group we were asked to share about how our relationship with Jesus has developed since we said the prayer. (once again, a lot of things I could say there, but I’ll move on). The general assumption was that our personal relationship with Jesus was the central aspect of our faith. How he made us feel (at peace, secure, joyful..), demonstrated the intimacy and intensity of our relationship with him. Nothing should ever get in the way of that relationship. Anything that challenged the serenity or intensity of that relationship should be given up in order to get us back on track with Jesus. Basically that the point of our faith is FEELING close to Jesus.

Not being a fan or dichotomised living that negates feelings (as in the Four Spiritual Laws), I could deal with the general sentiment being expressed. It was when some of the women shared about the things that diminish their feeling of the relationship that I became uncomfortable. One woman shared that she felt pulled apart from just being with Jesus when she was expected to perform for him - like do good works. Another described how hard theological questions she encounters make her loose the feeling of closeness with Jesus. I understand that these are real issues they are struggling with, but I was disturbed with the implication expressed that if they want to keep the feeling up, they have to avoid the compulsion to do good works or explore tough theological issues. What I felt expressed was that the feeling of relationship always comes first and trumps even good works and the study of God. (I have no clue what these women really think since the conversation was short, I am just responding to what I heard).

While I affirm the necessity for feelings as part of our faith experience, I have a hard time justifying abandoning the mandates of Jesus or the pursuit of truth for the sake of our feelings. Maintaining a generic feel-good sort of religious experience that doesn’t accept hardship or the wrestling with God required of faith isn’t the sort of faith I desire. If my faith doesn’t ask anything of me or if I fear exploring truth wherever it may be found, it doesn’t seem like much of a faith to me. Sure, I might feel all warm and fuzzy with Jesus as my best friend, but that seems like a pretty shallow reason to believe. If the substance of my faith is just feelings and not truly following Christ in all ways, is my faith really in more than just myself? God just seems much bigger than that.

A Christianity based just on feeling has the disturbing outcome of placing ourselves at the center of our faith. Feelings and relationships are good, but they are not the main point of following Jesus. There is more substance to our faith than that. I’m not advocating a return to the unrealistic train model that glorifies “objective” facts, just a faith that has no boundaries. A faith that isn’t confined to the balance seeking serenity mindset of the contemporary American church that places our personal spiritual needs above all else. But a faith that isn’t afraid of being pushed, or working hard, or stepping out into the unknown. A faith that is willing to put even itself on the line for the sake of following Jesus. A faith that cares more about being a disciple of Jesus than his friend. A wild, uncharted, emotionally messy faith that has few answers. A heart-wrenching, disturbing faith that is neither safe nor tame. The sort of faith one can hardly bear to live with but can’t imagine living without. A faith that scares me to death, but is still my deepest desire.

This is the sort of faith I wished we talked about in small group settings. Instead of asking how close to Jesus we feel today, we should be asking how God has kicked our butts recently by pushing us outside our comfort zones. Or in what ways we, like Jacob, have wrestled with God recently and been blessed by it. Or how we are so in love with Jesus that we are constantly seeking to understand him more even when that challenges every assumption we might previously have held. Forget about facts, faith, and feelings - let’s just live it out, come what may.

The babymop -

Today at his Jesus Creed blog, Scot McKnight, put up a post outlining what he thinks evangelicals do well. He made some good points while admitting that there is room for improvement. But one of this points bugged me a bit. He wrote -

We are good at being properly ecumenical. Evangelicalism is a movement and not a denomination. We align ourselves with others - all others in fact - who embrace the gospel. Because of this conviction, evangelicals are found working across denominational lines, forming parachurch organizations united around a common gospel theology, and joining hands in public with those who want to work with us. A genuine evangelical transcends her or his denomination in the unity only the gospel can bring. Think Christianity Today and John Stott.

I see the true aspects of what he is saying. My experience at Wheaton College - a very interdenominational school - was a poignant example of various groups of believers coming together under one conviction (more or less). But I find myself hesitant to agree that evangelicals are truly ecumenical.

My hesitation starts with the fact that for most of the evangelicals I have known “ecumenical” is a dirty word. I recall one amusing encounter regarding this issue. A small group I was a part of at my Baptist church in Wheaton was going door to door around the church’s neighborhood collecting prayer requests. We generally received the typical responses of either a quick locking of the door or a “that’s soo sweet,” but one lady decided to give me an earful instead. After a diatribe on why judging others is a mandate for all Christians, she told me that she wanted no one from our sinful Baptist church praying for her. Why? Because we were known to hold ecumenical activities in our basement. She said that like we were sacrificing children or something. The conversation ended with her telling us that she would pray for our salvation and quick exit from such an unholy environment (if she only knew…). Her stance reminded me of the stories author Philip Yancey would tell of how his home church tried to have him kidnapped and physically harmed to prevent him from attending ecumenical Wheaton College. Some could write these sentiments off as fundamentalist and not evangelical, but they sounded familiar to me having grown up evangelical.

In my experience other denominations were suspect for the mere sake of being denominations. Even at “ecumenical” Wheaton College, certain denominations were more accepted than others. The Assembly of God crowd were often suspect of following a misguided faith, and the Episcopal Church was only for philosophy majors who weren’t really Christians anyway (the Catholics had been run out a year or so before I arrived). In my campus job calling alumni for donations and prayer requests, I once was asked to pray that all the Mennonites on campus would find Jesus and become Christian. And in our final days working at the Baptist church, we had a few church members very upset that we would dare expose the youth to non-Christian religions - meaning Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans… Acceptance apparently only went so far.

So I am uneasy applying the term “ecumenical” to evangelicals. A very limited understanding of unity is representative of certain branches of evangelicals, but the term must be reinterpreted in order for that shoe to really fit. I just can’t bring myself to say that evangelicals truly deserve the label ecumenical. Inter-denominational, sure, but not ecumenical. It is hard to be one in the Spirit when you can’t admit that those not exactly like you could even be believers. Perhaps this is the definition Scot was intending. If “embracing the gospel” draws a very small boundry of believers then yes it is possible to be ecumenical among those one thinks are believers. But the traditional usage of the term implies unity among all who follow Christ - in whatever form. And that form of ecumenicalism is not yet fully realized by evangelicals.
So while I agree that evangelicals do many things well, this is one area where the still remains much room for improvement. Perhaps one day all areas of the church will truly be ecumenical, but today I still see more division than cooperation.

Last Tuesday night we sat on pins and needles awaiting the outcome of the election. The results and Obama’s speech in Grant Park were defining moments for our nation. I cried at hearing his words and for the first time in a long time dared to hope for our future. As the response poured in there were two sentiments I heard repeated over and over again - that this is an historic moment and that now anyone can dream of being President. I agree with the first, but I have a few issues with the second.

Of course this is historic. In a country that 150 years ago enslaved Africans and in living memory segregated blacks from whites, overcoming that history is powerful no matter who you voted for. That said I can’t join the chorus rejoicing that the dream is now open to all. Why? Because in all truth it isn’t (I’ll explain in a moment) and because I don’t support that particular dream.

Electing a black man as president is huge, there is no denying that. But that doesn’t by default mean that anyone can achieve the same. There has been much talk about glass ceilings during this election cycle, but I am still unsure if a woman could be elected President in this country. With so many churches still preaching the inferiority of women, blatant sexism is still too accepted to be so easily overcome. Even the reactions to the election results demonstrate the undercurrents of racism in our country. Down here in Texas a noose was hung from a tree at a major university and a UT football player was kicked off the team for a racial slur he posted on Facebook. Barriers to freedom and equality are still alive and well. And does anyone really think that a Muslim, or an Atheist, or a LGBT person could be elected president? Someday perhaps, but that dream is still too flimsy to grasp. There is still much work to be done and our celebrations shouldn’t lull us into complacency.

But as I mentioned on Eugene Cho’s blog the other day, I am uncomfortable with dangling the dream of becoming President of the USA as the ultimate achievement. When encouraging my children in their life path, I don’t want to convey to them that obtaining the highest level of power and prestige possible is the target they should be aiming for. I am all for empowering them to be who they are meant to be (even if that is president), but I want to avoid encouraging the will to power so to speak. I’m also not a fan of defining success as making lots of money and presenting the whole doctor/lawyer/banker career option as an ideal either. I want them to believe that a successful life involves fulfilling the command to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Money and power are incidental to achieving those things (and often obstacles as well). Of course doctors, lawyers, bankers and perhaps even president can live in those ways but so can teachers, artists, baristas, and parents. I want to tell my kids that they can be anything they want to be, I just don’t want to encourage them to want the wrong things.

So as we bask in the historic moment, I hope the dream we promote is one of justice. The hammer of justice can break down barriers and empower the disenfranchised, but it is wielded not in the name of power but in the name of love.

Elections can often bring out the worst in people. I’m already sick of the Obama/Hitler rise to power comparisons (come on, can’t you at least be creative) and the litany of Gospel additions we have suffered through (i.e. to be a Christian you must vote this way…). Hopefully that will all subside soon, but what sticks around after these cycles are the undercurrents of prejudice. After the intensity of candidates and propositions is over, people stop fighting and succumb to the “pissed they exist mentality.”

Try as some might to make certain sorts of people illegal, what most people seem to want is hide the very existence of the other. I’m not talking about wishing child molesters or rapists didn’t exist (and working to make it so), but the mentality that gets upset that they (or especially their children) must breathe the same air as say a LGBT person, or a Muslim, or an Atheist, or a Christian. These are the people who would rather ban all extracurricular activities in a school than allow a group of THEM to gather together. Or the parents who launch campaigns against libraries to remove books that talk about someone having two mommies from the shelves. Or the Atheists who freak out if a Christian social worker is profiled in a “secular” magazine. I understand engaging in disagreement, but am appalled at this desire to pretend reality just doesn’t exist.

I’ve seen this pattern occur all too often within the Christian world especially. A few years ago I was working on a screening committee for a magazine to decide which submitted articles to publish. One very well written article told the story of a girl’s date rape and subsequent silencing at a Christian college. While the committee thought it was a good article, it wasn’t published because “our readers don’t want to hear about stuff like that.” Or the public safety officer at Wheaton College who had been told not to look for drugs on campus because it was better to pretend they don’t exist than taint the college’s reputation. Then there are the bans on religious symbols (headscarves, jewelry) in schools and workplaces. And the numerous people I encounter who just don’t want to hear about justice issues because it might upset them too much.

Reality check please. Pretending that reality doesn’t exist just because you don’t want it too is unhealthy. Perhaps it’s time to engage a slightly less unbalanced tactic in how you deal with the world.

Please.

In acknowledgment of the most powerful nation in the world choosing a leader today, this month’s Synchroblog focuses on leadership. There are of course various places I could go on that topic, but I’ll keep it simple. I just want to give a plea to our leaders and to those that follow to be consistent.

When as people we treasure certain values - in our faith or philosophy of life - my plea is that we let those value infuse all areas of life. Loving our neighbor (and enemy) isn’t just for Sunday mornings. Certain political scenarios or economic structures don’t give us a by in that area. If we believe we are called to love, then let’s do it consistently.

If we teach our kids to share and play fairly, let’s apply the same rules to ourselves. Let’s not teach our kids the story of the Good Samaritan at church and then criticize a leader as a socialist for his desire to give care to all.

Can we stop with the excuses about why the bible doesn’t affect real life already? If we believe it, let’s really believe it. Let’s live it out and expect our leaders to live it out.

Consistently.

For other contributions to this Synchroblog check out -

Jonathan Brink - Letter To The President
Adam Gonnerman - Aspiring to the Episcopate
Kai - Leadership - Is Servant Leadership a Broken Model?
Sally Coleman - In the world but not of it- servant leadership for the 21st Century Church
Alan Knox - Submission is given not taken
Joe Miller - Elders Lead a Healthy Family: The Future
Cobus van Wyngaard - Empowering leadership
Steve Hayes - Servant leadership
Geoff Matheson - Leadership
John Smulo - Australian Leadership Lessons
Bryan Riley - Leading is to Listen and Obey
Susan Barnes - Give someone else a turn!
Liz Dyer - A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Polls…
Helen Mildenhall - Leadership
Tyler Savage - Moral Leadership - Is it what we need?
Bill Ellis -Leadership and the Re-humanizing of the World
Ellen Haroutunian - A New Kind of Leadership
Matt Stone - Converting Leadership

It seems that the world has been put on hold as the election approaches (at least from the perspective of the US media). All conversations revolve around the election. So that’s what your getting here - totally random thoughts about the election.

I tried to explain to Emma earlier why tomorrow was a special day after she in her totally three year old logic stated - “I can get a haircut on Tuesday because Tuesday isn’t a special day.” After I attempted to explain the concepts of President, the United States, and voting she got really upset and said she didn’t want anyone to be faster than her (Emma in 2040!). I had to play the mommy as linguistic anthropologist to understand that she thought “running for president” meant a footrace and that she didn’t want anyone besides herself to win. So I clarified to be told by her that she wants “Mr. Cain” to win because he has a better name. Then she informed me that velociraptors are her favorite dinosaur because they have the most fur. Some days I just don’t ask.

But her comment about names struck me because there are so many out there who are voting for one candidate or the other because of similar inane reasons (including name). My last post was a rant on such uncritical voting habits, so I thought this post should be a confession of my record and the sometimes flimsy reasons behind my voting habits.

I mentioned here before that the first election I remember was 1984 when in the first grade mock ballot I attempted to vote for just the VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro because I thought a woman should have a turn at President. The first election I voted in however was in 1996 - Clinton vs. Dole. At the time I felt like there was no choice but to vote for Dole no matter who he was or what he stood for. He was a Republican, Clinton wasn’t. I was a Christian so I had to vote Republican. I was in my freshman year at Wheaton College and was surrounded by similar attitudes. Dole won by a landslide in the mock campus election and the handful of people who came out for Clinton were called some seriously evil names.

Not much had changed four years later for Bush vs. Gore, at least on campus. I was in grad school at Wheaton at the time. I recall the student newspaper reporting on some political science students who had worked at a Gore rally. The backlash of that was intense - students and alumni writing in to express their astonishment at the sin the college was letting its students participate in. Even though the students had expressed that they themselves weren’t democrats (they just went for the experience), they were guilty by association.

I was torn in that election. I knew that there were a number of issues that I agreed more with Gore on than with Bush, but I still couldn’t get over my evangelical upbringing enough to vote Democrat. Sad, I know.The issues that stick in my head that were deciding factors at the time were the facts that Gore had recently sided with pharmaceutical companies to keep cheap generic drugs for AIDS out of Africa and (I can’t believe I’m saying this) that I liked what Bush had done for education in Texas. So I voted for Bush. I remember being in Bruce Benson’s Christianity and Postmodernism philosophy class that evening as the returns came in. I think the only three Democrats on campus were in that class as well. We took an extended break to watch election coverage in the lecture hall and they formed a small but vocal cheering section for Gore. I recall being somewhat indifferent about who won (a good thing given that it took forever to find out). I voted for Bush out of obligation, but the part of my that cared about the issues wanted Gore to win.

Then came 9/11 and the Iraq war, and by 2004 I was part of the anyone but Bush camp. I liked Nader, but didn’t want to throw away my vote, so I voted for Kerry as a lesser of two evils choice. I was pregnant with Emma at the time and had been put on strict bedrest just a week before the election. Getting out to vote was one of the two times I broke that strict bedrest rule. The election occurred right before everything hit the fan with our jobs at a Baptist church (we were scary emergents, you know the rest), so the women prayer warriors still cared enough to call to see how I was doing stuck on the couch all day. I mentioned to one of them that I had gotten out to vote (not mentioning who I voted for) and she praised me for being willing to risk my health for the sake of electing God’s candidate. I let her assume whatever she wanted to assume…

So here we are on the eve of one of the most exciting elections I can recall. It has also seen some of the saddest elements in our society emerge as the sexism and racism still present in our society surfaced. I am fascinated to see Christians (some at least) break away from the party allegiance and vote independently. I have a feeling that this change is permanent and that we are entering a new era of American politics. Early in this race my wish was that it come down to Obama vs. McCain. At the time that outcome seemed impossible, but I thought then that I could live with either candidate. McCain has disappointed me since then, and Palin seriously frightens me. So contrary to my toddler’s name affinity, I’m voting for Obama. I don’t see him as a savior, or our only hope, or all those other far-fetched accusations I’ve heard. I think he will be good for our country and the world. I’m not going to rehash the issues here, but just say that for the first time I am casting a positive vote for someone whose vision I support.

So after this long journey across the political spectrum, I’m voting Obama tomorrow. What’s been your journey?

Like most people I talk to I am impatient for the election to be over and done with already. The rhetoric and the mudslinging is to be expected of course, but this time around the intensity is profound. I’ve mentioned here before my frustration with the assumption I encounter everywhere that people are only voting for Obama because they are blind sheep or have been brainwashed. Or that if we vote for him we are not “real Americans.” These attempts to solidify and intensify the divide between us and them are a sad reflection on our ability to understand the other. But what frightens me the most is the undercurrent of such sentiments - an anti-intellectual stance that turns educated into enemy.

To be educated in this politicized environment is to be written off as brainwashed, elitist, and unAmerican. The educated voter who asks thoughtful questions is mocked in favor of some self-esteem rally gone bad message that encourages an “I’m okay, you’re okay, anyone not like us is weird” attitude. The average Joe (be that six-pack or plumber…) is fed the lie that to be educated is to be liberal and to be liberal is to be evil, so therefore education (and thoughtful intellectualism of any sort) is evil. Flawless logic of course.

I recently had some guy link to my blog saying that it is because of educated liberals like me that he votes Republican. When did education become a bad thing? And worse, when did mocking it become a political slogan? I know that there are many wonderful educated Republicans, but what I keep hearing over and over from them is that it is far better to be average and stupid. Perhaps this is just pandering to persuade a vote out of those least likely to think through the issues, but is creating a new uneducated elite really the best thing for our country or the world? I’m all for democracy and the voice of the people, but to vilify thinking enters some dangerous territory. Maybe it’s some brilliantly insidious conspiracy theory - glorify the average, mock the intelligent, and pave the way for a brave new world (or something like that). Or perhaps it just plays off people’s fears and jealousy issues. Whatever the case, having an education and being a thoughtful person has nearly become a crime in this country.

Jacqueline Carey, one of my favorite fiction authors, wrote about this recent trend in her monthly blog -

Many things about the last eight years in America have disturbed me, and one of the most subtle, yet profoundly detrimental, is the rise of anti-intellectualism. It’s like being back in junior high, only with a weird secondary adolescence twist where being smart, intellectually curious, and well-informed makes a person a condescending, out-of-touch, latte-sipping elitist… Electing a president of the last remaining superpower in the world is a lot more important than electing the junior high prom king. I want the smart guy in charge. I don’t want another cowboy filled with steely-eyed resolve, ready to trust his gut instinct. We’ve had too many guts with lousy instincts in charge. It’s time to give the brainiacs a chance.

I’m all for that. And for the record I really don’t care about what degrees from which institutions people have (if they have them at all), just that they are willing to thoughtfully engage. Reverse this trend of anti-intellectualism America - please. I want my leader to expect me to be thinking - not lauding me for being too American to think.

Twice in one week…

I have another post up over at the God’s Politics blog in their series on the economic crisis.

As a follow up to my recent post on Call+Response about modern day slavery, I was intrigued today to see two stories about sex trafficking make the news. CNN reported on the success of “Operation Cross Country 2″ - a nationwide attempt to free people from forced prostitution. This resulted in the release of 46 children into protective custody. But apparently it also resulted in the arrest of 518 adult prostitutes. Maybe it’s just me, but that course of action doesn’t seem to be the most helpful approach. If someone is trafficked into forced prostitution in this country under the age of 18 they are rescued and protected, but if they are over 18 they are arrested? Are we seriously punishing women for being trafficked? (and yes I know not all those arrested were forced or trafficked, but still…). On paper these women are (often) illegal immigrants practicing an illegal profession. So instead of helping them establish productive lives our legal system punishes the victim. There is something seriously wrong there.

It reminded me of the other news story on modern sex slavery I read today - that of former slave Hadijatou Mani winning a suit against the Niger government for their failure to protect her from slavery. Heralded as a landmark case that will pressure the government to actually enforce it’s antislavery laws, Ms. Mani faced the double horrors of both slavery and government punishment. Sold into slavery at age 12, she performed domestic tasks and was repeated raped and forced to bear the children of her master. After attaining freedom, she remarried. But when her former master claimed to be her husband she was sentenced to jail time for bigamy. One reason she brought a suit against the government was to ensure that her children remain free and do not face what she faced.

Somethings missing here. If sex slaves are just going to face punishment if they obtain freedom, we are just giving their slavers another tool to keep the system in place. The slaves will stay silent out of fear - fear not just of their slaver but of the government that claims to be their protector. That is some pretty messed up justice, if it can be called justice at all. Half hearted attempts to fix a broken system don’t cut it. Ending slavery is something that has to be done all the way. When people have suffered they need healing and love not misguided letter of the law bureaucracy.

So my response to the new Christian subculture movie Fireproof and its conception of marriage are posted over at the God’s Politics blog. Here. Enjoy.

So last night I got a chance to go see the documentary Call+Response about modern day slavery. I have to start by saying - go see this film. It should be required viewing for anyone with a beating heart. I know a lot about modern day slavery - I’ve read the books, I’ve seen the pictures, I’ve heard the stories. I still left this movie raw. It is hard not to have a visceral reaction of absolute rage after seeing it. Rage at the greedy bastards who enslave people for profit. Rage at the men who create the demand for sex slaves because they are ruled by their dicks. Rage at those who dismiss this discussion in the name of political or economic philosophy. Rage at myself for supporting the system that rewards slavery.

The rage starts the moment the movie begins and you see a group of 5 and 6 year old girls lined up in a brothel explaining what sex acts they offer. And it continues as one sees story after story portrayed of those in slavery - women chained in brothels, an entire family still enslaved for a debt incurred four generations ago, children abducted and trained as marauding soldiers and rapists. Atrocities that exist all around us and support the systems and lifestyles we take for granted.

The theme holding the film together is that of music. Music that is the voice of the people sending out their call. And as in the old spirituals that musical call must be answered with a response. So musicians came together to sound the call and be informative agents for this often unknown plague. Those who hear the call - hear the stories - are now expected to respond.

One line that struck me in the movie was when in an interview Dr. Cornel West spoke of the need to encourage those prone to paralysis to action. When I heard that phrase, the lines from the hymn Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing sprung to mind - “Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, prone to leave the God I love.” So often we hear sin and rebellion described simply as this wander away from God. The hymn pleads for God to fetter our hearts to him to prevent such wandering away. But Dr. West’s word’s reminded me that all too often the worst we can do is to do nothing. We are prone to paralysis. We don’t respond to the call. We ignore injustice, or, worse, find some excuse as to why we really shouldn’t bother to care. We do nothing.

And that multiplies the rage.

Tags: Call+Response, slavery, sex trafficking, social justice, abolitionist, Cornel West

I’ve mentioned here before my love of Anthony Bourdain’s travel/food shows. Last night saw the premiere of an occasional talk show titled “At the Table with Anthony Bourdain.” It’s the sort of thing that only the elite New York foodies could even dream up - a talk show where elite New York foodies and writers eat at a trendy restaurant and well, talk. Navel gazing in the extreme. And then there are the people like me that are fascinated by the whole thing.

So as Bourdain and his guests proceed through a molecular gastronomy tasting menu, they address deep and meaning questions like “is it ethical to spend $1800 on one meal?” and “is torturing animals for our pleasure wrong?” Alright. I half expected the group to use the space as a platform for humane eating or at least an ironic look at the absurdity of high end dining. But no. While acknowledging that they should perhaps care about such things, they all agreed that they would choose such guilty pleasures any day - and not feel guilty. It was all about savoring the pleasure of the experience. Sure it’s insane to spend $1800 on a meal, but they would spend more on a piece of art; so, the memory of their enjoyment of the meal is well worth the cost.

Of course it could be easy to dismiss the silly New York elite who are so self-consumed that they make a TV show about how self-consumed they are. But the whole thing intrigued me. Here is a group of people who have no qualms stating that seeking pleasure is the greatest good in their lives. It honestly made me laugh. These are the people I’ve been warned about my whole life. The pleasure seekers who “exchange the truth of God for a lie” or try to fill their God-shaped vacuum with sex, drugs, and food. They are the negative example given to demonstrate that pleasure - all pleasure - is a sin.

Either pleasure is the greatest good or the biggest sin.  It’s the ongoing either/or issue.  I find both extremes absurd. But it seems that all to often all we get are the extremes. I want to affirm pleasure. One should not feel guilty for enjoying life. Life is meant to be savored. But not at the expense of others. My desire for pleasure should never justify torturing animals or enslaving people. We really need a third way that gets beyond both self-centered myopia and guilt inducing condemnation. Pleasure should affirm life - all life. Pursued in joy and love and enjoyed guilt free.

Tags: Anthony Bourdain, pleasure, guilt

I just had to share this from my MOPS newsletter….

Make Jesus A Part of Trick-or-Treating

God has chosen to reach the world through us. It has been said that nothing cost less, goes farther, lasts longer or says it better than a gospel tract. These little booklets use funny stories, pictures and jokes to introduce a scriptural study of the “Light of the World.” Just put the tracts under a light for a few minutes before you hand them out to activate the glow-in-the-dark ink on the front cover. Hand them out with each piece of candy and introduce your neighborhood kids to the love of God. Go to www.atstracts.org.

Mike’s response was - “at least they are giving candy with the tracts.” There are so many things I have issues with in that paragraph I don’t know where to begin. The tracts though are priceless. There are the typical bait and switch joke tracts that eerily present a version of the gospel in joke format. Then there’s the one with the message - eat too much candy and you go to the dentist with cavities, sin too much and you go to hell. (so therefore going to the dentist is like going to hell???). Or the one that states “sin makes us do bad things.” (really, makes us???).

Anyway, just had to share…

One of the obvious differences between Chicagoland and Texas (besides the weather) is the visual aesthetic of city infrastructure. Honestly, driving around Chicago everything is just ugly. Ignoring the fact that most of the year the roadways are covered in dirty snow and caking salt, it’s the cement structures themselves that offend. They are stark, utilitarian, and generally falling apart. But here in Texas (and in New Mexico), public structures like highways are visually interesting. Nice brickwork, sculptural elements, color variations, and the ubiquitous symbols of the state adorn the roadways. It’s nice to look at and far less depressing than the functional but ugly Chicago roads. In short, I like it.

But of course the issue goes much deeper than rather I like it or not. The roadways are paid for with tax dollars. And my gut reaction is to say that there are far better things for our tax dollars to be spent on than making our highways look nice. I’m sure the cost of those premium bricks could have gone a long way in a public school. Stop at bare bones functionality - no matter how butt ugly - and (theoretically) save money to be used elsewhere.

Yet the result of that line of thinking is that aesthetically pleasing environments then become available to those able to pay for it themselves. Beauty and art (of whatever variety) then belong to the rich while the poor just make do with the hand they are dealt. And that hand generally equals an ugly, utilitarian, and depressing environment. If you don’t have money, you don’t “deserve” beauty.

So in regards to the age-old argument about the uses of tax dollars, I can support public works projects that seek to bring beauty to all - even if it is as simple as the construction of highways. Trapping people - whatever their income - into something that is merely functional but ugly does little to uplift or encourage hope.

My grandfather passed away this week and we are headed to Dallas this weekend for the funeral. His death wasn’t unexpected, but it is still unreal. In the past decade I only got to see him a couple of times - he was in hospice care and I rarely made it to Dallas. But growing up I spent lots of time with him. Every Sunday evening we had a family dinner at his place - my cousins, brothers, and I building blocks and playing with Star Wars figures in living room while the “big people” chatted away in the dining room.

During my childhood, he was building and losing his fortune in the Texas oil business, but what remember most are his stories. From stories of his dad the policeman who was involved in the pursuit of Bonnie and Clyde, to his football days at SMU, to WW2 we never tired of hearing those tales. A former officer in the U.S. Navy, he would show us the dagger he “liberated” off of a dead Nazi SS officer. He told us about his ship almost sinking in the D-day invasion at Normandy. And in helping General Patton win his rivalry against British marshall Montgomery by coordinating the naval end of the crossing of the Rhine River and getting Patton across first. And also of his best friend dying in the foxhole next to him.

Stormy wasn’t able to remember who I was the last few times I saw him, but he remembered these stories - the defining moments of his life. I’m sure we will all be remembering these stories as the family gathers this weekend.

So it’s Blog Action Day and I signed up to blog about poverty issues in Austin. Great idea - but I sheepishly have to admit that I have no idea what to blog about. Having just moved back into the area less than two months ago I haven’t had much of a chance to understand the state of the city’s culture today. Most of my knowledge of poverty issues in Austin is from a dozen years ago or so when I last lived here.

My experiences started as I lived through Austin’s final attempts at desegregation in the early 90’s and was bused to East Austin for Jr. High. East Austin is often called the “bad side of town” and I had friends who weren’t allowed to cross to the east side of I-35 even in the “good” areas. I recall someone even running for city council on the platform of tunneling the highway underground so as to eliminate east and west sides and therefore the economic divide in the city. But for a Jr. Higher, passing prostitutes and witnessing drug deals on streets lined with trash and broken glass to then enter a highly secure locked down school did more to inspire fear than compassion. Add to that the resentment and violence the local students had toward us bused in students and it was easy to simply think of them as “other.” Poverty wasn’t a problem to be solved, but a situation to be avoided.

Fast forward a few years and I became part of the establishment of the Austin based outreach group Mission Possible. I know little of the large organization it has become, but in the beginning it was about loving and helping children in poverty. We would work in local housing projects providing tutoring and activities for the kids. A couple of friends and I started girls clubs and spent our weekends in the projects with the kids. We were in High School and we couldn’t do much, but we did what we could. Our youth pastor told us to stop working with those kids because it took us away from youth group activities, but we did it anyway. Getting involved and providing opportunities these kids didn’t normally have were the small steps we could take to reversing the constraints of poverty.

So as I return to Austin and blog about poverty here today it was these personal stories I remember. There are of course huge systemic issues at play - the sort of stuff I usually discuss here. But so far my time back here has just brought me personal stories. Neighbors struggling to get by in this crazy economy. A single mom of a teenager who has become an adopted mom to all the teens in the neighborhood - providing love and some stability where she can (even though her dog scares me to death). Another single mom with a girl Emma’s age who has moved back in with her parents as she battles cancer and the financial troubles that brings. Real people, real stories.

I’m still trying to figure out my role in this particular story of poverty issues here in Austin. Where I am going and what I’ll end up doing here is up for grabs. For now I’m just listening to stories.

Tags: Blog Action Day, poverty, Austin, #austinface

This past weekend we headed to downtown Austin for the oldest festival in Austin - the 76th annual Mediterranean Festival at St. Elias Orthodox Church. The church, officially an Antiochian Orthodox church, has since become a pan-orthodox community - proximity of geography achieving what centuries of dogma never could - an ecumenicalish orthodoxy. So here the Coptics, Syrians, Greeks, Russians (to name a few) worship together (in English nonetheless) and share their cultural hertiages. The Mediterranean Festival is a chance for that heritage to be shared with the larger community. Taking the term “Mediterranean” lightly the offerings included Greek, Turkish, Eritrean, and Romanian foods and folk and bellydancing lessons. As great as these elements were, what intrigued me the most was the evening vespers service I attended at the church itself.

While the bands got going and the alcohol began to flow (clear sign that this was an Orthodox not Evangelical fest), Saturday evening vespers commenced as scheduled at Saint Elias. It was immediately apparent that most of us attending the service weren’t regular attenders. There were of course the gawkers who wandered in throughout the service, stood listening for a couple of minutes, got tired and sat down, and then got bored and wandered out. Then there were those of us who stuck it out with the whole stranger in a foreign land demeanor. We stealthily (or not so much) watched the few regulars for when to bow or cross ourselves or pray aloud. I gave up on that after awhile and just listened.

Although almost entirely in English, I understood little of the service. I am unused to sung prayers or liturgy of any sort for that matter. I’m not part of that whole ancient/future stream of emergent; it’s just not in my realm of experience. So, I had no clue what the role of the parade of priests (or whatever title they hold) was as they each performed different aspects of the service. I recognized a few familiar verses and prayers and I caught phrases referencing the salvation of the pious orthodox and some stuff about heretics, but mostly I heard repeated over and over again the phrase “Lord, have Mercy.” It was devout, but from my vantage point, utterly confusing.

So I was torn in my response to the service. I felt out of place. I wasn’t unwelcome, but it was obvious that no concessions were made to help make the service accessible to outsiders (who this night at least were in the majority). My low-church, seeker-sensitive/evangelical roots balk at such a system although I intellectually know that such a reaction is unfair and unloving. This was about a prayer service, not about what I expect from church. So I attempted then to simply acknowledge the beauty of the service and of the faith reflected in it. It was beautiful and the repeated prayers for mercy were moving (although the icons done in sentimental 1930’s styles were more cheezy than transcendent). But then as I sought to see the beauty, I wondered if I was merely being condescending. Was I acting too much like the outside observer patronising a cultural event not so much as to enter into it and become part of it, but to stand apart and look down upon it.? Philosophical discussions about the possibility of either and all that gets lost in translation aside, I left the vespers feeling more like an outsider than when I entered in. I didn’t want to be an anthropologist, but I discovered I wasn’t a participant either. I was assuredly out of place.

Perhaps that is a good thing, perhaps not. Whatever the case, it has had me thinking and asking questions about such experiences and what they mean for my faith and for the church…