Month: February 2011

Love Always Wins

Posted on

I spent this past weekend in an experience that gave me more hope in the church than I have felt in a long while. I had been invited to lead workshops on everyday justice at the Salvation Army’s Call for Imaginative Faith Conference, and I ended up being amazed by what I saw at that conference. I know the SA has issues and I don’t agree with all of their theology, but I saw for the first time a church using their passion for Jesus to do serious work to care for God’s creation and God’s people. I saw denominational leaders confessing of a past where their church cared only for the spiritual and not the holistic needs of people. I heard stories of carbon offset projects in China that restore eroded lands by planting mulberry trees – trees on which silk worms can grow, providing a source of income for women in an area preyed upon by human traffickers. I heard stories of the rebuilding of New Orleans that focused on people’s strengths and not simply their vulnerabilities – getting at and helping fix the root of their problems (like asking why people can no longer afford to pay their electricity bills and discovering it is because some church group rebuilt their home as cheaply and as energy-inefficiently as possible -which can start to be addressed by giving them a $50 dollar home greening kit). I was amazed by the creative and imaginative ways I saw people doing whatever they can to do the most good as they strived to always love God and love others.

And then I came home and saw the social networks ablaze with the inquisitional fires of the evangelical church jumping at the chance to denounce Rob Bell for his audacity at (supposedly) proclaiming in his upcoming book that in the end love truly does win. From the blog posts dismissing him for his universalism to John Piper’s juvenile tweet of “farewell Rob Bell,” it was hard not to laugh at the absurdity. Here I had spent a weekend having my faith in the church’s ability to actually follow Jesus somewhat restored to only be immediately reminded of the vitriol many in the evangelical world possess for any who don’t buy into their very historically recent and rather scripturally unfounded definition of what it means to be a “biblical Christian.” But what truly got to me was how in how this debate was framed those opposing Bell’s ideas were being forced to claim that in the end God’s love actually doesn’t win. Like Jonah pouting after God didn’t utterly annihilate the people of Nineveh, they are actually defending a system that puts limits on God’s love simply because they want to be the ones with a corner on the truth who get all the goodies in the end. Call it doctrine or dogma or self-centeredness, it simply confounds me that people still continue to argue against the love of God.

What appears to be at the source of the controversy is Bell’s supposed claim that a loving God would never judge anyone to eternity in hell (although since most people –including myself – have not read the book yet, no one really knows if that is what he is actually saying. But check out the YouTube promo video here). So Bell is being called a universalist which in evangelicalese is code for “I’m a heretic who hates the Bible” (or something to that effect). But if Bell is saying what I think he’s saying (and of course I have no idea, but I’m throwing my 2 cents in anyway), he is actually far more in line with traditional orthodox Christian theology than this new-fangled thing called evangelical theology. I’m betting that the position he is asserting is that of a universalist who believes in hell (which is where I’ve found myself landing these days as well).

In this view nothing – not human doctrine nor prejudice – can stand in the way of a God seeking to reconcile all things to godself. God created humans to be in constant relationship with godself – growing ever closer to mirroring the image of God we were created in. We instead chose to attempt to be godlike without God, walking away from God in the process. But God did not reject us. God could have withdrawn from us, casting us away from divine perfection – annihilating us in the process since by nature we could not exist apart from that which we were meant to be in eternal relationship with. Instead God was merciful and simple let us walk away. But like Dante so beautifully portrayed in his Divine Comedy, even as the furthest reaches of hell are frozen over as Satan flaps his wings in a furious attempt to fly further and further away from God, he is still not out of the reach of God’s love. Hell exists, but it is a place of our own creation as we try to flee from God asserting “our will be done” instead of “thy will be done.” God does not condemn us to hell, or cast us out of his presence (which would destroy us); instead God pursues us out of Eden and even into hell, offering the gift of blessing and redemption. We are meant by nature to be in relation with God, created in God’s image our purpose is to bear that image and continually reflect it back to God through our acts of worship in this world. Despite our attempts to flee to the furthest reaches of hell, God still reaches out to us because if we still exist, we are still image-bearers, and God seeks after us to restore the racked icons of our person to godself.

When the historical church couldn’t understand how a person could be forgiven and reconciled to God they declared them an anathema which means that their fate be cast up to a higher court for although it was beyond them how they that person is in Christ he or she could never be beyond God. And if in the consummation of creation all things will be reconciled to God, then unless we want to assert that God rejects and therefore annihilates those who flee from him, we have to believe that in the end God’s relentless pursuit of his beloved results in the actual redemption and reconciliation of all things. In the end all that belongs to God, all that was created in the image of God, will turn away from its rebellion and be reconciled unto God. In short, in the end love wins. Love is not fettered by temporal constraints, or extended only to the workers that arrived early in the day. We were created to be in relationship with God, and it is the return to that state of theosis where we can participate in the covenant where we are blessed to extend God’s blessing to the world that God desires for us.

I saw a glimmer of a church that got that with the Salvation Army this past weekend – a group of passionate followers of Jesus taking seriously the call to end the injustices that stand in the way of the blessing and reconciling of the world. They know, in their own peculiar way, that love wins. So instead of trying to put limits on God’s ability to redeem creation and pouting about wanting to be the only ones the divine lover chooses to pursue, maybe we can start acting as if God really does rule the universe. Maybe we can accept the gift of God’s love and instead of selfishly keeping it all to ourselves we live into our identity as blessed icons and give that love away.

Read more

Conquest, Empire, and Irony in the Biblical Text

Posted on

So this past weekend at the Central Texas Colloquium on Religion I presented a paper titled “Conquest, Empire, and Irony in the Biblical Text.” The paper is an exploration of how our understanding of the narrative of the conquest of Canaan changes if we read it through an ironic lens. A number of people expressed interest in the topic, so I’ve posted the paper as a Google doc – it can be found here.

The common interpretation of the conquest, especially the book of Joshua has always troubled me. In the way it is commonly interpreted and taught in Sunday schools it portrays God as an oppressive and violent God commanding genocide. It is a text that has been used to justify acts of colonization and violence done by supposed Christians for centuries. It was used to justify the colonization and enslavement of Africans, the genocide of the First Nations peoples in the Americas, and as the picture here shows (thanks Brandon Frick for sending me this) the ongoing violence in the Middle East. As I see it biblical interpretation and theology must always be practical. If those interpretations lead to practice that undermines other aspects of the texts, there the most obvious conclusion is that the interpretation must be wrong. Yet Joshua is always a difficult text. In a heated discussion about the conquest narrative at the 2010 Emergent Theological Conversation as the evil ways the texts has been used were offered by some as reason to be suspicious of scripture, Colin Greene asked as an aside “what if the text is read ironically?” The question wasn’t explored there, but it captured by attention and led to this paper. I in no way claim to have resolved the issues in the text, but merely am proposing an alternative way of reading the text that helps resolve some of its inconsistencies and problems.

So if anyone is interested in reading something a lot longer than a typical blogpost, feel free to read the paper and contribute to the discussion.

Read more

Cynicism and Social Change

Posted on

I’ve been having a hard time not being cynical lately. Maybe it’s the winter months and the never-ending rounds of colds they bring, but naïve idealism has been elusive of late. It’s been hard recently to see people as anything other than selfish jerks who can’t be bothered to care for anything or anyone but themselves. I know a balanced view would be healthier, but at least this cynicism has sparked some interesting conversations regarding how that inherent selfishness of people sometimes leads to a better world.

To take the most impersonal of examples – my husband Mike is working towards his PhD in church history and is currently taking a class on the Civil Rights movement the content of which he’s discussed with me. As a good little American public school student, I never once actually had a history class that managed to make it to that particular era. So while I know the cultural legends about the period (the bus boycott, Brown v. Board, “I Have a Dream” and all that), I understand little about the political undercurrents of the whole thing. The idealistic side of me can’t wrap my mind around extreme racism and wants to cheer for how the nation was able to see its own sin and repent of its evils. At least that’s the fairy tale version that we tell as an inspirational bedtime story.

But in truth selfishness played a big role in the whole thing. If not for the Cold War and the fact that most powerful Americans hated the commies more than they did people of color, most of the cultural revolution would never have occurred. America was playing the role of the defender of freedom in the post-WW2 world. We stood for truth, justice, and the American Way. We spread the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights to every corner of the globe in order that our way (and not the communist way) would win out in the end. But those pesky commies made sure to point out that in America not all people were truly free. They used segregation and racism against us to undermine the truth of our ideals. Since we couldn’t let the communists be right, we as a nation had to do something about that. Time to do something to ensure a minimum of rights for everyone regardless of the color of their skin. Sure, there were activists and idealists, but the government run system ultimately changed not because people had a change of heart but because there was a greater “evil” to be fought.

Same thing with women’s rights. Since 9/11 there has been a fascinating openness in conservative circles to speak up for certain sorts of women’s rights. Granted, feminism and equality are still bad words and submission and the stained-glass ceiling are still alive and well, but even the most complementation of folks are speaking out about the need to end female genital mutilation and sex trafficking, and about how educating women can be a good thing. I want to idealistically believe that people are waking up to the sin of sexism, but the cynical part of me believes that it is only that the majority of Americans believe we are at war with Islam and want to separate themselves as far as possible from the perceived evils of an “oppressive religion.” It’s not about women, it’s about us.

Or take Egypt. We can all tweet away that “Egypt is free” and get teary-eyed at democracy for all, but I have to wonder what would happen if it all got too close to home. When Haiti had the first successful slave revolt in 1825, the United States refused to acknowledge them as an independent nation. Why? Because recognizing a free Haiti would undermine our own economy which was built on the backs of slaves. So what if it wasn’t Egypt or Yemen that was in revolution, but China? Would we be cheering on the spread of global democracy if the potential cost of that revolution was the worldwide economy and our lives of luxury?

Do we only care about others when there is something in it for us? Will we only put our necks out for the oppressed when our own safety is on the line? I don’t know. Sometimes though it’s hard not to be cynical. I can see why the temptation to turn to the extremes of militant activism or Hauerwasian withdraw holds so much appeal for many. Faith in “thy kingdom come” is hard to sustain.

Read more

Groupon’s Controversial Social Critique

Posted on

As posted at the God’s Politics blog –

I admit, I only watch the Super Bowl for the commercials. Yes, it’s crass and consumerist, but seeing how marketers decide to spend millions of dollars in an attempt to manipulate me each year holds some sort of strange appeal (twisted as it may be). One could say that it’s entertainment at its finest.

The buzz after the big game usually revolves around the commercials — the best and worst of the night, so to speak. This year all of us Gen Xers were amused and reminded of our own childhoods by Volkswagen’s “force” using kid. And the nation was stirred to sentimental working class patriotism by Chrysler’s homage to Detroit (as they sold a luxury car no working-class family could ever afford). But the award for “Most Controversial” went to Groupon’s satirical public service announcements turned coupon selling spot.

Three ads were aired which turned the celebrity charity spokesperson shtick on its head, but it is the Tibet one that has our country all in a dither. The commercial starts out portraying the people of Tibet and alludes to the cultural oppression they are facing, it then switches to a celebrity spokesperson explaining how he was able to save money at a Tibetan restaurant by purchasing a Groupon coupon. As the Groupon blog explains:

The gist of the concept is this: When groups of people act together to do something, it’s usually to help a cause. With Groupon, people act together to help themselves by getting great deals. So what if we did a parody of a celebrity-narrated, PSA-style commercial that you think is about some noble cause (such as “Save the Whales”), but then it’s revealed to actually be a passionate call to action to help yourself (as in “Save the Money”)?

Since we grew out of a collective action and philanthropy site (ThePoint.com) and ended up selling coupons, we loved the idea of poking fun at ourselves by talking about discounts as a noble cause. So we bought the spots, hired mockumentary expert Christopher Guest to direct them, enlisted some celebrity faux-philanthropists, and plopped down three Groupon ads before, during, and after the biggest American football game in the world.

But apparently most of America didn’t quite understand the joke. The Groupon blog is full of comments from offended viewers, and Twitter and Facebook are full of posts asking people to boycott Groupon for the offensive commercials. The general response is “I’m offended that Groupon used the suffering of the people of Tibet as a way to sell coupons.”

But as I see it, most people are simply missing the point. Granted, the Super Bowl is a time when people expect to be entertained by ads, not forced to interpret social commentary. But the erudite and self-deprecatory style of mockumentary director Christopher Guest is exactly what they were given with the ad. Groupon took the basic style of American celebrity charity and showed it as the selfish act that it generally is. Charity in America is unfortunately often not an act of selfless compassion, but instead is a way for people to feel good about themselves or gain something in the act. We don’t just give money to charities; we hold expensive galas and silent auctions that reward us for our act. Politicians and celebrities earn brownie points for telling the world how much they give. Charity, for many Americans, always is an act of self-aggrandizement at the expense of suffering people.

And Groupon called us (and themselves) out on that blatant hypocrisy. In my book, it was a brilliantly done harsh critique of American culture. And America missed the point. People who would generally care less about Tibet, or who would have been offended if a political/leftist/socialist “Free Tibet” ad had been aired, are now acting all offended on behalf of Tibet. Groupon showed us that the people we should be offended at are ourselves, but that was not a criticism people were ready to hear as they stared at the screen mumbling, “Here we are now, entertain us.”

I get that Groupon, like any other business, is out to make a profit. I don’t ascribe anything near to pure motives to them in this whole controversy. They are making donations to the very causes they portrayed in their satirical ads, and at the same time are making money from those ads by selling coupons. I don’t know if their whole purpose was the controversy. As with the commercial itself, the motives involved seemed to be a multi-layered mix of commercialism, commentary, and controversy.

I can’t tell people what they should or should not be offended by, but I do think it is worth pausing a moment to consider the message of the Groupon ads. Why do we give to charity? Do we support causes for the sake of the cause or for our own sake? What are we more passionate about — helping others or helping ourselves?

Read more

Media for a Better World?

Posted on

At church recently we have been exploring different world religions during our Sunday school time. It’s been an eye opening experience for many to learn about what others actually believe (as opposed to what Americans assume they believe). Many in the church were drawn to the Buddhist concept of letting go of our expectations of how we wish the world would be so that we can live in the present instead of learning for something else. I understand the impulse and the appeal, but also realize that it is the eschatological vision of a better world that is at the core of why I am a Christian.

But beyond that religious difference, I started pondering if such detachment from visions of different worlds is even possible in our media saturated culture. If the idea is to be fully present in the moment and not be caught up in a vision of a different world, how is that even possible when everything we encounter throughout our day serves to construct for us a different world?

On the most basic level, there are the marketers that try to sell us a vision of the good life (which of course includes their product). Their ploy is easy to see through, but even as we recognize their manipulation the subconscious idea of what constitutes a good life permeates our collective unconscious. Even if we intellectually think otherwise, it’s hard to escape the media images’ view of what success looks like, or what is beautiful, or what sort of people are to be respected and listened to. Whether we like it or not, those very basic concepts are defined for us by our culture presenting to us a vision of a world we are to desire to live in. We are presented with an image of a possible world, told that world is the norm, and then we strive to live into that world and in effect create that very world.

As much as this system upsets me at times – when it leads to women starving themselves to meet the assumed beauty norm or when it teaches children that women exist only to serve men – I know this is the basic way culture has functioned forever. Ideas always influence present reality. Humans have always defined ourselves in relation to others around us. We build expectations and strive to fit in to our culture – it’s just that those cultural influences are more in our face these days. So, I’m wary of saying I want to attempt to escape such influence – it’s going to happen even if I go off the grid. I’d much rather embrace that influence and build a better world. If our culture subtly informs our idea of what is normal – what the world we are suppose to have truly is – then perhaps deliberately presenting a more humane and inclusive world could help us achieve that.

This was brought home to me recently as I watched the Swedish versions of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movies. Here were some very dark, political, and violent films about the ways women are abused by men at all levels of society and yet through their subtle portrayal of society presented a beautiful picture of a better world. From showing fathers caring for children and running errands, to having the main lawyer character be heavily pregnant (without once making that a plot point) images of equality suggested that the evils of misogyny can be overcome. The presentation startled me because I would never see such things in an American film. If a career woman is pregnant it is a point of controversy, not the norm we are allowed to see. In our films a guy wearing a Baby Bjorn (The Hangover) became a cultural joke and a popular Halloween costume. Men acting as nurturing fathers are a joke and not the norm in our cultural media. But watching those Swedish films made me wonder about how things could be different.

I’m Christian enough to believe that a better world is possible. I pray for God’s kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven. Even when it frustrates me, I know my call is not to detach myself to simply live in the now but to seek that better world however I can. But I am also pragmatic enough to accept that our vision of the world is always being shaped by forces outside of ourselves. I don’t see those forces as evil in and of themselves, but as tools that can be used to either twist reality for selfish ends or to help us step into a more humane and loving reality. To build a better world we have to first believe that it can possibly exist. I just wish that we could start using the tools we have to work for that world.

Read more

The Contemplative and Active Life

Posted on

I’m sure I’ll get in trouble for writing this, but I need to rant for a minute about a theological pet peeve of mine. To put it bluntly I’m sick and tired of the false dichotomy theology has created between the contemplative and the active life of faith. Granted, the conversation of the vita activa versus the vita contemplative sounds a bit medieval (and I’m sure Thomas Aquinas would serve me a disputative smackdown on the subject), but the division still permeates our religious psyches today.

In its historical definition the contemplative life is the one that is focused on meditation on God. It is a life full of prayer, of the study of scripture, of divine listening. The active life on the other hand is the life of service – of caring for the poor, the needy, and the oppressed. The contemplative life is supposedly about loving God and the active life about loving our neighbors. The Medieval theologians, influenced by Platonic and gnostic thought in their deprecation of the body, not only made the distinction between the two, but placed them in a hierarchical relationship. They argued that the contemplative life – the one that focused on spiritual things – was superior to the active life which was mired with its association with sinful and corrupt bodies. There, of course, was also some class snobbery involved here. Only the wealthy and the clergy had the luxury to live a contemplative life while the peasants had no choice but to live a sort of active life in order to survive (and make the lives of the wealthy and the clergy possible). By defining contemplative worship of God as superior to active service, those groups created a caste system where they reinforced their position at the top of the social hierarchy.

They, of course, supported the division with scripture, most often using the Mary and Martha story to support their position. Since Mary listened at the feet of Jesus she became the archetype for the contemplative life, while busybody Martha was associated with the active life. Once those associations had been made, using Jesus’ affirmation of Mary’s choice as the better one was an easy way to argue for the primacy of the contemplative life. This interpretation of the story is the one still supplied even in churches where the average member has never even heard of guys like Thomas Aquinas. We still get fed theology that tells us that bible study, prayer, devotions, liturgy, meditation and the like are better ways to know God than the active forms of service. We still create that dichotomy that not only separates but privileges the soul above the body.

But as I see it, that division is utterly false and creates unnecessary barriers for our walk with God. To begin with, I don’t buy into the idea that we are spiritual beings trapped in corrupt bodies. I don’t think the physical world is something to be put up with until we can escape to our true home. God created this world and called it good. My body is good. Not simply because it houses my soul, but because it is how God created me to be. I don’t have to ask if I am a spiritual or a physical creature – they are inseparable. I cannot be me if I wasn’t both at the same time. So I’m not starting with the same “spiritual=good, physical=bad” assumptions that fueled most of the contemplative vs. active debates.

But beyond embrace a holistic view of people, I also see the creation of hierarchies between the contemplative and active life to be utterly unbiblical. Those that propose such suggest that when Jesus delivered the greatest commandment, he gave two separate and ranked commands. Love God (be contemplative). And then (second and therefore inferior) love people (be active). In that view, it’s not that one shouldn’t love and serve others, only that contemplative practices are better for communing with God.

By why must the command be seen as dualistic and ranked? As I read scripture, loving God and loving people are one and the same. Doing acts of service, leading the active life, is an act of worship, a way to reflect back to God a bit of the imago dei. When we read the demands God makes of his people there is no division of the two. We are told to rest on the Sabbath so that we will not overwork servants and animals. The day was not created to spend time contemplating God, but to ensure the wellbeing of people. When Micah lists what the Lord requires of us, humble piety is listed alongside acts of mercy and justice. Isaiah goes a step further and condemns people for participating in contemplative acts of worship and while ignoring the injustice in their own community. He tells that that the worship God desires involves feeding the hungry and helping the oppressed. We are reminded over and over again that God cares for the physical wellbeing of people – if we dare claim to know and follow that God our worship should reflect that aspect of God’s character.

Acts of solemn contemplation and acts of service are both ways we worship and come closer to God. The point is relationship with God. Mary wasn’t preferred to Martha because she sat still while Martha worked. Mary sought to follow God. Seeking God is what is preferred. No need to insert gnostic lies about the evil body. No need to create social caste systems. No need to say that one form of worship is better than another. Loving God and loving people are the same thing. We can’t choose between the two. We can’t say one is better than the other. To love God is to love people and to love people is to love God. It is what we were created to do; it is what God expects of us.

So I’d really appreciate it if people would stop spewing lies about how one is better than the other. Prayer is no better than feeding the hungry. Setting the oppressed free is no better than lectio divina. All are acts of worship. All bring us into closer relationship with God. Continuing to promote the dichotomy only serves to restrict people from serving God in the fullness of who God is. Paul got it right when he chided the Corinthians for desiring what they deemed to be the greater gifts. Pretending to be holier than others by asserting that the way your worship is superior to other types (or refusing to acknowledge that anything else is worship) misses the point. The Bible says God detests such worship gatherings. So in my insignificant opinion maybe it’s high time we got rid of this petty division between the contemplative and active lives (and all the posturing that goes along with it) and start worshiping God fully. Because isn’t that what it’s supposed to be about anyway?

Read more