The Out of Ur blog recently posted a video of N.T. Wright going off on the dangers of social media. He warms that blogging and the like will stand in the way of real communication with others and he calls the popularity of social media "cultural masturbation." Now it's nothing new to hear some voice or other going off on modern technology, putting their own particular "it's the end of the world as we know it" spin on the matter. And on many issues I truly love and respect N.T. Wright, so I was disappointed to hear someone so knowledgeable about history and faith jump on the "caution people about the perceived dangers of the internet" bandwagon. And admitting the irony that his video was posted on a blog to be discussed on blogs, Facebook, and Twitter, let me just rant for a moment why I am tired of this discussion.

Let's just get it out of the way. The warning that Wright and others give is that social media takes people away from actual face-to-face interaction. That if we spend too much time blogging and tweeting we will reduce our time spent with huggable (Wright's term) people. The problem is – that just isn't true. A recent Pew Study busted that myth. It reported that, yes, about 6% of the population are isolated and asocial, but that is a number that has stayed steady since 1985 – before the widespread advent of the internet. The study also found that people who spend time on the internet are actually far more likely to go out and be with real live people than those that don't use the internet. The point – social media actually builds community, even of the huggable people sort. Not only that, but that community is actually more diverse than those that don't use social media.

Now I admit, there is the temptation online to not present one's true self to the world. I think using the internet for role-playing and gaming is one thing (come on, you can freaking FLY in Second Life!), but aside from people who are already social deviants I see most people being themselves online. For example, I recently decided to alter my blogroll to a list of people's names. Aside from group blogs and the occasional anonymous blog, most people are known these days by their true identity and not just their blog name. That wasn't the case when I first started blogging or interacting online. Back then, most people hid behind cute avatars and handles. Most of the blogs I read, especially those by women, were anonymous, but over the years people have moved towards being themselves by using their real name. Same thing with email addresses. It used to be that everyone had some personal descriptor/ alter-ego as their email – like JesusGirl98 or SurfrBoy123. And yes, my first email address was EponineJMG@aol.com (ah, the musical obsessed highschool girl demographic). I still cringe a bit when I sign into a site I've been on for a long time (like The Ooze) and have my user name be some variation of MaraJade. Back then, I assumed that the internet wasn't real community and that I could hide behind my username, but I've come to realize that I have to be true to myself. And that involves using my real name and only writing the things I am not afraid to own up to.

So as I present my true self to the world and see others doing the same, I get more and more annoyed with those that accuse online communication of not being real communication. I'm sorry, but how the hell is it not real? Communication of this sort has existed for ages, blogs and Facebook and Twitter are just its newest forms. Back in college we had message board and blog posts – only they were of the paper and pen variety. Someone would write out a few paragraphs or pose a question and tape that paper to a wall in the student center or even in a bathroom stall. We would add our replies with pens. Same thing in grade school. We would fill notebooks with Facebook-esqe questions like "What are your favorite bands?" or" Where do you want to live when you grow up?" and pass them around class getting everyone's responses. And go back a few hundred years. You have Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Door. You have pamphlets being printed to disseminate ideas, and counter-pamphlets appearing in return. Sure, it took longer, but its the same idea as blog posts. Or the way letters to the editor used to functions as a forum for discussion. Or even the popularity of pen-pals one would never meet. Communication of this sort has all happened before, so why is it that this time it isn't real?

Social media doesn't destroy or hinder community, it builds it. As a fairly extreme introvert, I had far fewer friends before I started connecting through the internet. Now because of online connections and discussions, I am spending much more time with flesh and blood huggable people. Like any community or form of communication, the online world has its flaws – no one is disputing that. But I am tired of being told to fear something for dubious reasons. So Wright can call this age-old form of communication cultural masturbation if he wants, I'll just send him a virtual pint on Facebook and have fun discussing his ideas with my friends – both on and off line. Because that's real community.

But watching these commercials from 20-50 years ago was disturbing. They were so far fetched, it is hard to believe that anyone ever thought that they might be persuasive in any way. There was one about fortified white bread that was presented as a documentary – explaining that fortified bread has improved nutrition so that children who eat white bread are smarter and better athletes. Or the McDonald's commercials presenting a parade of uniformed, pretty, white women singing about how much they love serving a stereotypical small town. It was all about these companies providing helpful services that will improve our lives. Well, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe that processed junk food has improved anyone's life. And as Food Inc. shows, that sort of food is actually destroying our health, our environment, and our country.

So it was amusing to then pay attention to the junk food commercials I encountered over the next few days (which, btw, are all the food commercials, natural, healthy foods don't have advertising budgets). Every single commercial was about treating ourselves – giving ourselves the break we deserve. No veiled lies to get us to believe that processed junk helps people, but simply the appeal to self-centered "it's all about me" mentality. And I know how stupid it is to complain about commercials, but they have big money going into determining what people want to hear. Forget building community, or improving lives – that's so 1978. Now its all about self-centeredness.

It's hard not to get cynical when confronted with that attitude. There are people I start discussing my upcoming book on justice with, and I get a blank look in reply. I've even had people ask, "why should caring about the needs of others be my concern?" Or I stumbled across this book recently, which decries the evils of environmentalists who are "demanding that you turn down your thermostat, stop driving your car, or engage in some other senseless act of self-denial." Apparently trying to save the earth must be fought because it threatens "the entire American way of life" and envisions for us "a grim future marked by endless privation." Well, duh, of course it does. But apparently for some it is far better to be selfish jerks than to have to give up anything to help others. I know this isn't widespread, but some days it sure feels that way.

But maybe 20-30 years from now people will watch our commercials and ask "how could people be so selfish and stupid."

Before I go further, let me clarify. Church banners differ from the equally annoying church sign. While church signs have some pithy, inane, and often offensive saying meant to "witness" to the passing masses, church banners serve merely to advertise and get more butts through the door. And they generally only show up on megachurches because, let's face it, they are the only ones with the budget to print up those things. The problem (beyond the whole churches advertising like this in general thing)  is that what makes sense to the church in-crowd, is confusing and meaningless to the outside world.

A few examples -

The church I grew up at here recently advertised some sort of concert they were having in their brand new stadium with a banner on the side of their building. They are situated on prime real estate overlooking the intersection of two major highways. But from even the closest spot on those highways all I could see was the date and the faces of what I assume are two CCM artists. No clue who they were, what sort of event it was, or how to find out more. Serious advertising FAIL.

Another of Austin's megachurches hangs banners for their sermon series or ministry programs. A few months ago I saw that they were advertising for a series called "(in)justice." I was intrigued so I went to their website (Google search) to find out more and hit a wall. There was nothing on the website except for a reprint of the banner itself. In fact I could find very little that actually told me anything about the church at all on the website – but it was a slick website. The same church also recently advertised their men's ministry, so for a number of weeks they had a huge banner in front of their church that read "Men's Fraternity." I thought it was rather fitting for a conservative Texas church, but they were obviously clueless as to what message they were sending about their church.

Then there is the kinda sorta emerging megachurch in town. Not that they really are emerging, but they have the veneer. Well they put up weekly banners for their sermons. This week the sign reads "Close Your Bible. Open Your Mind." At first I thought that it was actually an interesting topic, then I went to their website. It apparently is a cute objection to faith that the church is addressing in their "Why Austin Doesn't Believe" series. I won't be there this Sunday, but I get the feeling that the sermon will be on why you shouldn't close your Bible and believe it anyway and not on opening your mind to different perspectives.

Okay, some might say that these banners are serving their purpose since I am noticing them. But honestly, how effective are banners at drawing outsiders in? If they don't explain much, or make any sense if you don't go to the church, why waste resources on them? I mean, I get some entertainment getting annoyed by them each time I drive by, but really, what's the point?

Odd story, but what really struck me was this line from Chris Horan, a spokesperson for the Boston School System, who "said in reference to the rumors that when you've got 'an $800 million budget and 212 layoffs, this is not really a priority'." So basically the economic crisis has become an excuse to opt out of dealing with school bullying. When the adults are stressed and dealing with their own crap, they give up on the kids. What a great example to set for the future leaders of our country.

In truth I'm getting really sick of the "economic crisis" excuse. Of course we all need the wake-up call to be more responsible and all that, and there are a lot of people suffering because of the crisis, but I'm sick of hearing it as the excuse d'jour. Like when American Idol announced the cancellation of Idol Gives Back due to the economic crisis. It was obvious that was going to happen after last year's ratings and giving were down, but blaming the "crisis" makes them look slightly less than scum (I guess). Or the Vermont governor using the crisis as his reason for saying he'll veto the same-sex marriage bill. Come on, call a spade a spade and admit you don't like gay people – don't use the crisis as your excuse. Slightly more understandable, but still pretty low, are the efforts of world governments to use the economic crisis to renege on commitments to lowering emissions or worse to loosen environmental regulations. Choosing to do whatever you want and then using the economic crisis to justify yourself doesn't make your actions any less selfish, it just means you are passing the buck.

I wish the crisis would really be a wake-up call – showing us how we have failed to be responsible human beings. How we have turned a blind eye to violence and bullying in schools, how we do walk on the backs of the poor and then even skimp on charity, how we let our own prejudices strip others of their rights, or how we selfishly destroy the earth for our temporary gain. We have been living self-centered and unsustainable lives. But of course instead on owning up the the messes we created, we use the mess as an excuse to be more selfish and more unsustainable.

It makes me wish the vampire rumors were true – at least that would have pushed us beyond ourselves and our wallowing in self-pity. But alas, no such luck. So on to the next headline – is the economic crisis the reason for the upswing in vascestomies? Well, maybe at least that one makes sense…

Dora for the most part used to be a good preschool obsession. She went on adventures, she spoke Spanish, she used logical processing. I liked my daughter admiring this round, fearless, exploring chica. Then the powers that be introduced Dora's cousin Diego and gave him all the cool adventures regulating Dora to various princess, mermaid, and babysitting "adventures." And now this new tween Dora seems intent on solidifying gender stereotypes even further. While Dora's new image is being kept under wraps for now, I found the teaser press release to be depressing. The main adjective used multiple times to describe the new Dora is "fashionable." I'm sorry Mattel, but teaching kids to be fashioned obsessed consumers is not "empowering girls." I'm sure it will sell well and make them lots of money, but lets cut the crap please.

But even as I write that I recognize the futility of asking a corporate entity to refrain from indoctrinating children into the cult of consumerism. But sometimes it would be nice to not have the world conspiring against my ideals.

(ht – Karen for pointing this out)

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.

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.

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…

Although I've encountered the idea off and on for the last few years, the stirrings of the "feminization" of the church argument are arising again. I expect to hear it out of a certain Seattle megachurch, but I've encountered it elsewhere (here and here) recently as well. The argument basically asserts that all of the problems in church exist because the church has become too feminized – or in other words, women are to be blamed for the church's issues basically because they are women. Of course the arguments are usually not so blunt – they generally revolve around the need for more testosterone or masculinity in the church (by which is meant strong, in-your-face, adventurous faith that has no place for "weak and girly" ideas like compassion, community, and tolerance). Usually John Eldridge is involved as well. What astounds me is that those spewing out such ideas have no clue how twisted and offensive their ideas are. For some this is about a misguided but genuine desire to make the church better, for others it's little more than glorified self-interest ploy to make church be more like guys night out or their glory days in college.

So to the guys sitting there with the "I don't get it" expression on their faces, here's a few of the reasons why this argument is seriously offensive -

1. It assumes female = bad. When the point is that the church is failing and needs something better than what it's got, to define what's happening currently as the feminization of the church assumes that if something is feminine it is bad. Women hear this argument as saying that which is feminine is bad/wrong so therefore it is wrong to be a woman (or at least not as good as being a guy). Do you guys really think this? Honestly? Do you really think that attributes that you define as feminine (more on this later) are so bad just because they are not male? Mayhaps some of your ideas for the church have merit, but it's really low to present those ideas in a way that demonizes and blames women for being women. So if you have an issue with open compassionate community don't label that as feminine and then blame women for destroying the church with it.
2. It is based on a false view of church. Sorry to burst the bubble, but in no way are women running the churches of the world. It is kinda hard for the church to be "too feminized" when in most churches the women remain muzzled and are forcible "kept in their place." Even if a particular church has more women than men, they are not the ones who hold power. And in the churches where women are respected as fully human complaining that you can't be fully male if you aren't allowed to ignore the women or generally be sexist isn't persecution or unfair, it's about being a decent human being.
3. It is based on particular and very limited conceptions of masculine and feminine. Sorry to break it to you – but the testosterone obsessed, wild at heart adventurer who worships a macho Jesus created in his own image isn't the sole definition of masculine. Sure it fits some guys, but it leaves a lot of other guys out. These guys are then told by the church that they aren't "real men" (or even biblical men) unless they fit this 20th century social construct of a man. The same is true of the limited definitions of feminine as well. Operating under the idea that all men and all women must fit into certain stereotyped molds is a tad absurd. It not only ignores individual personalities, but it allows the dominant clique to dictate social behavior. In a word – it's oppressive.
4. It assumes cooperation of the genders is impossible. Instead it makes the church all about power plays and personal needs. If men are afraid of women's voices being heard in the church and want to retain power at all costs, what better way to do than to demonize the feminine and elevate the masculine (or at least your particular definition thereof). Did you miss the memo on the whole "there is no longer male or female" verse? It doesn't have to be a battle or a power play. (and no sorry, but hierarchy isn't "masculine" and cooperation "feminine" – one dominates the other serves and last time I checked we were called to be servants). To claim that the church just needs to be more masculine elevates men to being more important than women. While I know there are guys who have an unhealthy obsession with being on top so to speak, demeaning and hurting others doesn't seem like the best plan for "rescuing" the church.

So I'm all for men seeking to understand what it means for them to be men. But don't do it at the expense of women. Don't blame us for your identity issues or because you feel inadequate when forced to live up to some Hollywood caricature of "male." Go on your adventure. Have spiritual moments playing football or whatever. Get involved in church. Open up. Express yourself. Discover yourself, but don't force others to be just like you. Allow God to work in their lives just as creatively as he has worked in yours. But please please please don't demean others in this process. Don't create scapegoats for imaginary problems.

And please stop casting women as the villain. It's so simple and basic it almost hurts to have to ask. But if you really want to "man-up" – take responsibility for your spirituality and stop pushing the blame onto women.

I was thinking about this the other day as I read in the paper about a local suburb that was making a new law restricting the number of cars that can be parked in front of a house. The law is in response to a local car collector who apparently has a dozen cars parked around his house, but I had to wonder about the ways it will hurt lower income households. I've had groups of friends who have rented houses together and therefore needed to park 8-9 cars in front of the house. And for families with multiple generations living together, multiple cars are just part of having multiple adults living together under the same roof. This is America – to be a working adult in most places in the country (that have no public transportation) you need a car. So this new rule limits the people who can live in the community to small single family households.

Same thing with laws about parking on the street. In towns that ban overnight street parking unless you have a home with a driveway, you can never have guests. I hated this when we lived in an apartment. We were more than willing to have friends or family stay on the pull out couch, but they would get a parking ticket (or would be towed) if they came to stay. The law effectively implies that only those rich enough to own a house with a driveway are allowed to entertain and socialize.

And don't even get me started on the communities around here that have laws stating you cannot hang clothing up to dry outside. So I am not legally allowed to be environmentally friendly???

I understand these laws are all about property value and even safety, but when did your "right" not to have to look at my laundry or a few extra cars necessitate legal action? Does it really mess your life up to have to look at that stuff? As much as it messes up the lives of those that honestly need to park that many cars on the property? Some days I just have to wonder how far we will go to insulate ourselves against dealing with anyone not exactly like us or with anything we may not like. Are we really that self-consumed?