September, 2007 - Julie Clawson

The Kingdom vs. Utopia

Posted on September 30, 2007July 9, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banned Books Week

Posted on September 29, 2007July 9, 2025

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

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

The reasons most commonly cited for challenging a book include –

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

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

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

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

So what’s your favorite banned book?

My Day Yesterday…

Posted on September 28, 2007July 9, 2025

Yesterday was one of those days.

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

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

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

[Grid::Blog::Horizon2107]

Posted on September 25, 2007July 9, 2025

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

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

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

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

Rejection, Redemption, and Roots

Posted on September 25, 2007July 9, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random Comments

Posted on September 24, 2007July 9, 2025

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

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

Up/Rooted Panel Discussion – Megachurches

Posted on September 24, 2007July 9, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Gates on Education

Posted on September 23, 2007July 9, 2025

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

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

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

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

Up/Rooted Panel Discussion – Emergent Freedom to Question

Posted on September 22, 2007July 9, 2025

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

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

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

1. Hypocrisy. Can Christians be genuinely consistent?

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

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

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

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

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

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