Category: Culture

Engaging the Other

Posted on

I recently was reading Peter Rollins blog where he posted the opening parts of a chapter based on his talks at the Calvin College conference. The chapter is titled “Beyond the Colour of Each Other’s Eyes: The Worldly Theology of Emerging Collectives.” The following section stood out to me –

This ritualistic enacting of the divine Kenosis, where we keep our shoes on but symbolically remove our ideological commitments, allows for those who have gathered to encounter each other in a different way than they normally would outside of the liturgical space. This encounter was beautifully summarised by Emmanuel Levinas in an interview when he commented that, if we see the colour of someone’s eyes, we are not relating to them. One way of interpreting this is by pointing out that, if we are not really listening to someone, we will be well aware of their external features, such as the colour of their eyes, the clothes they are wearing etc. However, once we get into a deep and intimate conversation will no longer notice these external features, we will no longer see the colour of the persons eyes. It is not that they have become invisible to us but rather that we have entered into what Martin Buber called an ‘I/Thou’ relation in which the objective nature of the other is encountered as emanating their subjectivity.

While I fully affirm the need to empty ourselves and get beyond labels and outward appearances in order to understand and love the Other, my gut reaction to his words is that he’s missing something. I think often in all of our ideological debating about how best to serve/love/know each other we get so wrapped up in ideology that we fail to even notice the color of each other’s eyes. Its not that we get consumed by appearances, but that we don’t even bother to care in the first place. Let me unpack where I am coming from here.

When I read Pete’s words, two other examples about eye color and the Other popped into mind. The first thing I thought of was something I read about the bestselling novel Twilight (and I bet Pete would love having his work compared to a teenage vampire romance…). The notion of eye color plays a significant role in the novel, in many ways it represents the person as a whole conveying their desires, their questions, and the nature of their soul. I read one woman’s response to the book where she mentioned the significance of eye color. As she was reading the books, her husband of 20 years was filling out passport applications for them and asked her from across the room what color her eyes were. Married for twenty years and he didn’t even know what color her eyes were. I have a suspicion that wasn’t because he simply looked past outward appearance and deeply engaged her soul either.

The other eye color reference that immediately came to mind was that old Revolutionary War command for the soldiers not to fire at the Redcoats until they can see the whites of their eyes. While that example promotes the otherizing of people, it reminded me that back then war was personal. Killing a person meant being right up there in their face – seeing the blood, gore, and agony your actions inflicted upon them. No matter what they were labeled, seeing the color of their eyes forced them to be a real human being. Today we can drop bombs on schools and hospitals with the pushing of a button. We don’t even bother to know who are are hurting – we don’t take the time to even acknowledge the physical existence of those we slaughter.

I think before we take the step to empty ourself for the Other, we have to first acknowledge the presence of the other. It can be easy to talk about them (like I am here) and contemplate moving beyond their otherness, but unless we first get close enough to see the color of their eyes all of that can never be real. So I’m all for going beyond eye color, but I think we need a healthy reminder get beyond ourselves long enough to actually see that color in the first place.

Read more

Stay-at-Home Moms, Identity, and Service

Posted on

In December an Australian cell phone company refused to sell a phone to a stay-at-home mom because she didn’t have a real job.  They told her it was company policy and that if she wanted a phone her husband would need to come in to buy it for her.   No credit check or inquiry into her actual ability to pay for the phone – just a blanket policy to not sell phones to stay-at-home moms.  The mother of three said she was shocked and felt like a second-class citizen.

 

When this story hit the news most women I know were similarly shocked.  We’d like to believe that this sort of dismissal of a woman’s identity is a thing of the past.  We are no longer simply Mrs. John Does, needing our husband’s permission and identity to make our way through the world.  We are full human beings who simply have chosen to commit ourselves to caring for others.  And we find the idea that caring for children isn’t a real job just because we aren’t stuck in a cubicle or get a paycheck for being on call 24/7 to be farcical in the extreme.  But apparently the myth continues.

 

Recently a (childless) friend expressed jealousy that I as a stay-at-home mom had so much free time to work on my writing whenever I pleased.  I just stared at him with incredulity and asked if he would enjoy writing articles or a book in 5 minute increments between changing diapers, playing dolls, wiping up spit-up, reading storybooks, and kissing boo-boos.  Not that I mind doing any of that, but let’s be realistic, free-time only occasionally occurs sometime after midnight – if I can manage to stay awake that long.  This work is real.

 

I find it interesting that in our culture another group of people who face a similar dismissal of their chosen profession are pastors.  They are constantly compared to their congregants who have “real jobs,” or asked repeatedly “so what do you do all week?”  Apparently those of us who choose to devote our lives to serving others for little to no pay somehow fail to be full human beings in society’s definition of the term.  Even within the church which values mothers and pastors in its own way, we still aren’t considered as worthwhile or important as others in more traditional buy/sell/trade/manufacture money-making professions.

 

Even though scripture encourages us to serve others and to place others’ needs ahead of our own, our culture often views those as optional endeavors – goals to pursue after the real work is done.  We don’t value service as a career choice.  I often wonder what would happen though if we chose to realign ourselves and our cultural values with the biblical call to service.  I’m not talking about mothers finally receiving the estimated $100,000 a year salary some say they deserve for all the occupational hats they wear, but simply starting to value people as people regardless of what they do and to see service as a whole life orientation instead of a free time option.  Perhaps not only would stay-at-home moms (and dads) garner greater respect, but the amount of service given for others would increase as well.  And there are plenty of areas in this world today that could use that service.

 

Or at the very least, it would be nice to have a world where a stay-at-home mom could buy a cell phone when she needs one.

 

Read more

Looking Ahead to 2009

Posted on

Perhaps it isn’t such a great idea to be looking ahead to 2009 right after going to see the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still.  Bad acting, plot holes and the end of the world aside, I can’t get the idea of tipping points out of my head.  The film of course proposes (with an implied hat tip to Al Gore) that the earth has reached a tipping point – either our wanton environmental destruction will completely destroy the planet or it must come to an end.  The alien visitors believe that humans are incapable of change and therefore must be exterminated to save the planet, while the humans argue that when faced with a large enough crisis they can actually change (imminent destruction by aliens being that crisis).  I don’t want to spoil the ending, so I’ll leave you hanging on the whole “do humans survive or not” question.

But ignoring the sci-fi melodrama, the film’s message bothered me.  I understand why crises can prompt people to alter habits, but does it always have to be that way?  I don’t want to believe that the only reason people choose to do good is to avoid negative consequences.  Granted this is a common equation in our culture.  We exercise and eat right to avoid heart disease.  We study for a test so we won’t fail the class.  We even accept Jesus so we can avoid the flames of hell.  Sometimes it seems like life is just one big crisis aversion scheme.  We avoid expending energy and doing anything until it becomes apparent that not doing anything personally hurts us more than actually doing something.  So we act to save our own butts.

Depressing, isn’t it?  It’s what I see all the time, but I’d like to believe it isn’t true.  The idealist in me wishes that sometimes people did the right thing because it is the right thing.  You know, like taking care of the planet because we genuinely want to care for God’s creation and not because aliens are threatening us with extermination.  To reach that tipping point and base our decision on whatever is loving, right, and just instead of that which is self-serving.  To actually do that whole “each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” thing we Christians like to quote so much.

So while I am not anticipating any alien invasions in 2009, I do believe our world is at a tipping point.  In addition to environmental destruction, injustice and oppression abound.  Too often our response is to do nothing.  We make excuses about how seeking justice and loving others takes too much time, energy, or money.  We are encouraged, for example, to only buy organic foods when not to do so presents us with a personal health risk.  So we buy organic apples to avoid the personal pesticide exposure, but don’t bother with bananas because their pesticide usage only affects the farmworkers and the environment.  Other times it benefits us more to allow injustices to continue – so we can spend less we buy the sweatshop jeans or the slave-grown chocolate.  We look to our own interests and not the interests of others.  And so the balance keeps tipping away from whatever is true, noble, and right.

But the outcome isn’t inevitable.  Selfishness doesn’t have to win.  Perhaps change can occur without impending doom.  Maybe we can all do good simply for the same of doing good.  We forget that it is within our power to make that choice.  It is my hope that 2009 will be a year when we decide to declare ourselves in that regard.  A year when the tipping point must be dealt with.  A year when we stop doing nothing and take a stand for good regardless of whether it benefits us or not.

And I really don’t care if that sounds about as melodramatic as a cheezy sci-fi flick; it’s what needs to happen.

So I look forward in hope to a year of action.  To a year of doing something.  To tipping the balance towards justice in 2009.

Read more

Protecting our Children on Election Day

Posted on

My children are young, as in infant and toddler young.  So they couldn’t quite grasp the historical significance of Barack Obama’s election.  When I shared the news with my three year old that Obama was the next President, she responded “but I want a present too” (she also thought “running for President” implied a footrace).   Needless to say my kids aren’t quite yet at the point of understanding the workings of civic society.  But it is something I want them to understand in time – while they are still young.  I fully believe that children deserve to know the world they live in and the politics that shape their lives.

So on one hand I understand the rationale behind placing polling booths in public school buildings.  Besides making use of public space, it exposes kids to the electoral process and encourages them to be responsible citizens.  But on the other hand, the whole situation makes me a bit uncomfortable.

When I went to vote on Nov. 4 in the middle of a normal school day, I simply strolled into my local elementary school and walked down a hallway of classrooms and bathrooms to a small cluster of voting booths.  Any other day of the year I would have had to sign in at the office, present identification, and be watched closely as I, an unknown adult, entered a safe place for children.  But on election day, the school was open to all (voters or not).  As a parent I couldn’t help but worry about the horror and chaos just one person with ill intent could cause if they took advantage of this lax open door policy.

Even in the absence of malicious aforethought, accidents can happen when the safety of children is ignored in favor of civic process.  In February 2008 at Lyons Elementary School in Randolph, MA an elderly man lost control of his car and careened into a group of children on school grounds.  He was simply trying to park his car so he could vote in the presidential primaries, but ended up pinning an 8 year old girl between his car and the school building causing her serious injury.

Tragic accidents or opportunities for sick predators should not be part of our coming together as a nation to choose our leaders.  Many cities have already acknowledged the dangers of allowing polling places in public schools.  Some districts ban polls from schools, others cancel school on election day.  But as I experienced in Austin, TX, some districts employ no precautions at all.

Amidst the talk of voting reform that swirls around every election, I would send out a call to America to rethink the role of our children on election day.  I am all for teaching them about voting, informing them about the candidates, and letting them participate in mock elections, but keeping them safe should remain primary no matter what day it is.  Nationwide reform to either ban polls from schools or cancel school on such days is a necessary step in safeguarding our children.  In situations like this encouraging civic responsibility involves doing what is necessary to prevent tragedy from marring the celebration of democratic community.  We’ve come a long way in our country to make suffrage easy and available to all – let’s be sure that it remains a blessing and not a burden for our children.

Read more

Fireproof Marriages?

Posted on

I’d heard the buzz within Christians circles about the “number one inspirational film in America.”  Everything from “this movie shows what true faith really is” to “this movie will save your marriage.”  Always wary of such claims and not really a fan of firefighter flicks, curiosity got the better of me and I headed out to a weekend matinee of Fireproof (www.fireproofthemovie.com).

I settled in to watch the story of a firefighter try to save his failing marriage through something called “the Love Dare”.  Unfortunately once the movie began, it was immediately evident that Fireproof followed the pattern of most explicitly Christian movies: the acting was flat, the dialogue awkward, and the scenarios unbelievable.  Full of sitcom-esque comic relief moments, and the requisite tear-jerker scenes, it also had more far-fetched set-up lines for evangelistic opportunities than a youth group apologetics manual.  But I did my best to look past all that and focus on the main theme of the movie – how to save a troubled marriage. (Spoiler alert: Jesus is the answer.)

What I couldn’t get past, however, was the movie’s conception of marriage itself.  Marriage is presented as a distinct entity that must be preserved for its own sake.  Thus, as the movie unfolds and Caleb (Kirk Cameron) embarks on a journey to save his marriage to Catherine (Erin Bethea), one doesn’t see a story of two people working together to have a better relationship, but of one person striving to keep a formal structure intact.  Of course, once both characters find Jesus, they have an epiphany moment, renew their vows, and live happily ever after (as shown by them getting into their car bibles in hand on their way to church).

What we don’t see is the actual reality of a husband and wife working together to build a stronger bond.  Yes, the husband realizes that he needs to do things around the house, stop lusting after a boat and porn, and get over being a selfish jerk; but we hear very little from the wife.  In fact we hear very little from women in the movie in general.  The prominent women in the movie, Caleb’s wife, his mother, and his mother-in-law, are essentially silenced.  He is constantly trying to avoid his nagging mother and asks her to leave or get off the phone repeatedly.  His mother-in-law is physically unable to talk due to a stroke.  And except for a comic scene displaying every stereotyped difference between men and women where his wife tells her friends how she feels, we hear very little of her side of the story.  The women in this movie play the silent victims as the heroic firefighter rushes in to save the day – or in this case, the marriage.

The message conveyed is that women need a strong man to guide their lives.  Women who step out on their own (like Catherine getting a job after seven years of marriage – without kids – because her husband won’t help her financially care for her ill parents) are outside that realm of protection (thus in danger of forming inappropriate bonds with their male coworkers).  The husband is implored not just to love his wife, but to take control of both his and her lives.  In the name of safeguarding the marriage, the sacrifice of the personality and identity of the wife is assumed.

I admit to seeing the appeal of the movie.  Anything to get husbands to send flowers and do the dishes is to be commended, but scratch the candy-coating and one sees the imbalanced core.  Living up to the hype, Fireproof is very much about saving marriages – as long as they are hierarchical institutions and not mutual relationships based on two whole persons becoming one.  Sorry, but as a married woman I’m not willing to sacrifice who I am for the sake of a few clean dishes.

Read more

Worship, Money, Crisis

Posted on

I recently saw a promo piece on The History Channel for their show “Cities of the Underworld.”  At first one sees an overview of a busy commercial street teeming with professionals and consumers.  The captioning states – “A pagan ritual is taking place on these streets.  Can’t see it? Look deeper.”  The premise is that some secret society once met in the abandoned tunnels below the city that you can hear all about on the show, but the irony of the commercial struck me.

Of course there is a pagan ritual taking place – the daily oblation of ourselves to the idols of money and stuff.  Now I know there is nothing necessarily pagan or evil with buying, selling, and trading, but the obsessive way we commit our lives to the pursuit of such things reveals a devotion akin to worship.  We acquire stuff and build our wealth often without thought to our religious beliefs and guidelines.  Instead of caring for the least of these among us, we look out for number one.  Instead of loving our neighbor we love our possessions – often at the expense of our very neighbors.  This religion of consumerism isn’t hidden underground; its rituals take place in broad daylight.

The problem is that with the economic crisis the intensity of these rituals doesn’t diminish, in fact they simply becomes more sinister.  People are not giving up on the desire to have more stuff.  They just want to find the stuff more cheaply.  So instead of rethinking our addiction to consumerism and the global impact of our shopping habits, we become more focused on finding the things we want at a lower price (apparently Wal-mart is doing quite well these days).  Chanting our mantras of “it’s all about me,” we face the economic crisis with a determination to live just as well as we always have.

This is truly a worship that glorifies the self.   Feelings of financial strain generally do not have the effect of pushing us towards compassion for those hurting more than we do.  We cut back on our giving and increase our propensity for supporting systems that oppress others for our own personal sake.  We want a cheaper product, which pushes the stores to find cheaper suppliers, who then must find cheaper labor.  And these laborers are the ones who worked to the bone in sweatshops or kept as slaves (the cheapest labor possible) pay the real price.  The strain of the financial crisis trickles down to choke those at the very bottom.

Even amidst the pressures of the economic crisis we need to remember that true worship doesn’t involve rituals of self-seeking consumption that exploits or ignores those around us.  Instead as we are told in Isaiah that the faithful are implored to “spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed.”  So instead of using troubling financial times as an excuse to turn inwards perhaps it could motivate us to lend a caring hand to others who are hurting.  Abandoning our self-centered pagan rituals in favor of loving our neighbor might perhaps be the best response we can give to a hurting world in crisis mode.

Read more

Pleasure, Guilt, and Talk Shows

Posted on

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.

Read more

Jesus and Halloween

Posted on

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…

Read more

Public Beauty

Posted on

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.

Read more

Politics and Jedi

Posted on

As the election ramps up and the vitriol flies I hear more and more people wishing that the whole thing would be over. We have been gearing up for this election for the past two years – rhetoric and promises have abounded, lines have been drawn, and the divisions in our society made clear. Even those of us who affirm involvement in politics are a tad nauseated.

It is obvious that the selection of the American President is not a unifying element in our culture. We expect little from the campaign promises because we know that the “other side” will on principle fight against their realization. So when someone stands apart from that polarized system and is capable of affecting change he or she captures our attention and admiration. It’s sad, but the existence of such people who can get stuff done is rare. Rachel Louise Snyder speaks to this in her book Fugitive Denim as she discusses one of these actual agents of change –

“Bono is one of the few people walking the earth today who can convince world leaders to change rules, to establish different priorities. He’s a lobbyist of the highest order; a salesman whose greatest tool is himself, his own belief.” (p.28)

Bono stands outside the system, but gets involved on the most basic levels where change is needed. He gets his hands dirty and uses his awe-inspiring celebrity status to use his voice for good. In this role he is less like a politician and more like a Jedi. You know, a Jedi – as in Star Wars, the Force, and lightsabers. In the mythology of the Star Wars universe, the Jedi were the guardians of the good in society. Committed to a mystical/spiritual path, they chose to serve their culture as peacekeepers, protectors, and priests. They were present in society and did the hard and dirty work themselves. They were not the government or minions of the government but advisers to the government. Their presence inspired awe and their word carried weight. They weren’t saints, but people trusted them and for millennia they spiritually guided a galaxy.

As fanciful as it is, I wish there were more “Jedi” in our society today. People who stand outside the systems, but who guided by spiritual conviction and a deep abiding love for others are able to speak truth into that system. And because they are serving they are deserving enough of respect that people actually listen. It is curious that it is a rock star and not a politician or religious leader who holds that role in our society. We could just dismiss this as cultural obsession with celebrity, or we could be vulnerable enough to explore what those other leaders are lacking.

I for one am sick of talks about mavericks and the like. I’m more interested in guardians of the good than propaganda. I’m hoping for more Jedi.

Read more