Category: Culture

Mother’s Day

Posted on

I think a yearly reminder of the original intent of Mother’s Day is always a good thing. A reminder that as women and mothers we can work together for peace, justice, and equality.

Mother’s Day Proclamation – 1870
by Julia Ward Howe

Arise then…women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
“We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.”

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: “Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.”
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace…
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God –
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

And this video (ht: Josh) I think makes a fantastic point about how we raise our kids determining the world they will create. What things do we tell them are important and significant in this world? Do we encourage them towards peace, justice, and equality? Or do we give such things lip service while really conveying to them that money and power are the really important things in life?

Read more

Frat Boys in Haiti

Posted on

My mom recently pointed out to me a piece (True Gentlemen Go Global) from my brother’s fraternity alumni magazine. It dealt with a group of SAE frat guys going down to work on a school and hospital in Haiti – very similar to the work our church has done with New Life for Haiti. Having heard Mike’s take on such a project, I was curious about the frat boy response. These guys referred to themselves as missionaries since they were vaguely connected to a missions group, but they were clear that they were different. They were not the typical missionaries with “guilt complexes” ready to serve.

Even still as they reflected on the trip, their reasons made sense. They said, “coming to Haiti, being a missionary — it wasn’t about doing something good in a poor country or helping paint a room even bringing medical supplies to a village in the middle of nowhere. It was about a promise. It was about an obligation. It was about the realization that you have the capacity to give, which means you have the duty to give.” The men felt good about (as it was described) fitting into the “traditional Baptist framework of Haiti, [where] it’s understood that those who are blessed to turn those good fortunes into blessings for others. You receive a blessing in order to give them away.” (I don’t think they’ve heard that that is a traditional biblical framework…)

This sounded very similar to the Christian groups I’ve heard report on their experiences. But then the article continued to go on about all the hardships the guys suffered – getting their parents to let them go someplace so dangerous, sleeping in stuffy cabins, having to walk in unlit areas at night, and having the local children get in their way while they tried to help improve their school. But most saw that it was worthwhile to give up a week of vacation so their presence could be “a gift to the Haitians.” But even with all the talk about having a duty to give and be a blessing, there was this incident reported –

In our American hometowns, we’re used to streetlights and headlights and constant illumination, but the streets of Pignon, Haiti, where only a few lights shine on a few street corners, most of the village sits in darkness. Dirt roads, winding and confusing in the daylight, became pockmarked mine fields. Low cinder-block walls become tripwires. To make matters worse, we had been told that things at night were not nearly as friendly for Americans as they were during the day. Nothing we encountered helped the general sense of unease that had settled on the group since a breathless messenger five minutes prior had told us we were needed urgently. “Will,” he said, out of breath and speaking to the trip’s leader, “the doctors need you at the hospital. Now.”

This was a problem. Either someone from our group had done something colossally stupid, something that couldn’t wait to be remedied in the morning, or the hospital’s owner had returned early from his trip and needed our help. After carefully making our way through trash and dirt-filled streets — praying that the village’s sole generator didn’t switch off, leaving us in total darkness — we stepped through the hospital’s iron gate, the one that warned us to leave our guns at the door, and looked for friendly faces. We were alone; no one spoke English. The only others around were poor Haitians, looking for healing the way the faithful congregate at a church in times of distress. The scene was looking even more grim until we found a friendly face: The doctor who sent for us.

“Thank you for coming,” he said. “A woman on the operating table needs a blood transfusion. She is very sick.”

We didn’t know what to say, so we looked at him blankly.

“We need one of you to donate blood.”

This wasn’t what we expected. These 11 men, undergraduates from the University of Arkansas, had signed up for a mission trip to build things and make friends, not to serve as donors for a woman in danger of bleeding out from an emergency hysterectomy. The next three minutes were a flurry of discussion. “What’s your blood type?” they asked each other. “What if we’re not a match?” “Is anyone O-positive?” “Is it even safe to give blood?”

Very few things prepare anyone for decisions like these. One week before Christmas, when friends and loved ones 1,600 miles away were making plans to go out on a Saturday night and were finalizing holiday travel plans, we were wondering who was going to save the life of a poor Haitian woman. It soon became apparent that no one was going to volunteer.

Will Smith, our man in charge, made the final decision. We weren’t going to serve as donors. Making difficult decisions is part of being a leader, part of showing the right path. Without warning, Smith faced a choice he didn’t want to face and, using his best judgment, decided he couldn’t put any of his men at risk.

“Thank you for considering helping us,” the doctor said when Smith told him of the group’s decision. “I will do my best to save this woman.” Our walk to the hospital was through the fading twilight, which did little to calm any fears, but the black night sky that greeted us on the walk home was as dark as our thoughts. Haiti needed our help in more ways than we could give.

The article never tells what happened to the woman, although it does later call the hospital the “Mayo clinic of Haiti.” To be honest I don’t know what I would have done in that situation. But I was shocked at how different their response to the trip and this situation were from the typical Christian response. Maybe it is our “guilt complex,” but the sense of obligation Christians have to care for others no matter the cost didn’t factor into this story. I have no problem with what these guys are doing – serving others and moving out of one’s comfort zone are always good things. But I found the whole thing curious and a bit depressing. How much can we really help and love others when we aren’t willing to really be with them and learn from them? A few days ago I blogged about how compassion is part of what Christ called us to. So this example of what service without Christ’s call to love looks like grabbed my attention. Honestly, I don’t want to disparage these efforts, I’m just pondering what it does take to move people to true compassion.

Read more

America, Race, and the Church

Posted on

This past week in America we have witnessed a rather disturbing portrayal of the the church. The reactions across the blogosphere and in newspaper editorials to the Rev. Wright’s comments and Obama’s response have helped demonstrate the underlying attitudes of priorities of the American church. First I should say, although I don’t agree with some of what Rev. Wright said, I do think he spoke prophetic truth and pointed out some real issues in America. I thought Obama’s speech on racism was accurate and something our country needs to hear. I am shocked at the extreme denial of “race issues” in America that has resulted from the speech. I’m sad that Obama’s first real public act “as a black man” has caused so many to turn on him. Obviously there are still deep race issues in America, regardless of the number of white editorials that say “I don’t look at a person’s skin color.”

But it’s the church issue that really gets me. Two thoughts keep surfacing in the things I read – first that Obama should have caused dissension and left his church community years ago. This assumption reveals the opinion of many Americans that this is how church should operate. If you don’t like something at church, you need to initiate a coup and/or leave the church for a better option. Community doesn’t matter as much as getting what you want from church. Apparently challenging words and honesty about issues in America are cause enough to destroy or abandon community. Church splits, gossip, backstabbing, and church-hopping are all apparently what America expects and wants from church. I know this is a complicated issue for many churches, but why has the first priority become leaving or kicking people out instead of building community and engaging in dialogue?

The second assumption I’m encountering is that pastors shouldn’t be controversial or prophetic, especially if that involves questioning America. This elevation of civil religion and America worship is scary. To place pointing out the sins of the country or just areas where growth is needed as out of bounds for the church prevents real change from ever occurring. I’ve heard plenty of sermons pointing out the issues with other countries, minority groups in America, or the poor, but they never cross the line into questioning establishment America. I could get soundbites of vitriolic hatred (lacking any constructive outlook) from any number of churches regarding “minority” issues (against homosexuals, women, Muslims, the poor…) and for some reason those statements are generally tolerated or at least ignored (if not taken up as a battle cry). Question the greatness of our empire or suggest lifestyle changes for the average American and you are ostracized (and told you are unbiblical for causing division).

What a freaking load of crap. What has happened to the church? When did questioning America become a greater sin than permitting injustice? For me, this is no longer about a political race, this is about having lost the idea of what church is.

Church doesn’t exist to rubber-stamp the status-quo of the empire’s powerful. Church isn’t about a nice experience that helps you feel content with your life as it is. Church isn’t about getting to sing happy songs. Church isn’t about what makes you feel most comfortable. Church isn’t about ignoring the problems of the world until you actually believe they have disappeared. Church is not about complacency in the American Dream.

The church is about being salt and light. About being a city on a hill. About loving God and loving others. About overturning the tables in the temple. About loosing the chains of injustice and setting captives free.

America – it is about getting over ourselves, laying down our lives and giving ourselves fully to following Christ. Somewhere we have seriously lost our way.

Read more

The Roots of Social Change

Posted on

So I had an interesting conversation last night on the nature of social change. We were lamenting how so much of the injustices in the world are perpetrated and sustained by untouchable major corporations – systems that control our society so subtly that most of us aren’t even aware of their influence on our lives. It is easy to despair in light of such systems – they have the money to control the opinions of the world and the power to sue you into oblivion if you stand up against them.

It was brought up that often for real social change to occur a dramatic and generally violent event must take place. A bomb must be dropped, the nation decimated by war, a terrorist must strike, a president assassinated, a space shuttle explode… Events that shock us enough to make changes. That change may be immediate – slavery will end, a nation gains independence, people relinquish their civil liberties. Or that change may just subtly change the outlook of a generation – we lose our faith in science to dominate the world. Even the “non-violent” revolutions are long drawn out ordeals that capture the attention of the nation/world before they affect change. Gandhi’s hunger strikes or march to the sea, Rosa Parks on the bus, the “I have a Dream” speech in Washington, or even the decades of marches by women seeking the right to vote. Big events capture attention and our collective imaginations. We are then shocked or scared or passionately motivated into change.

But what is so disturbing about most systems of injustice is that they aren’t dramatic. Take the issues with the environment. There was never any big campaign where the world decided to start destroying the environment. No tragic event that left us convinced we need to trash the earth. But even so, our ancestors of just 100-150 years ago would be horrified at the wasteful and disrespectful habits of our disposable culture. So what happened? One answer is to point to the 100+ years of advertising (by the major corporations) bent on convincing us to adapt a lifestyle most people don’t believe in or need. We were told that if we wanted to be sanitary we needed to buy paper towels, if we wanted to appear educated and upper-class we women needed to use disposable sanitary pads, and if we wanted to be modern and not confined to our grandmother’s kitchen we needed to use foil and plastic wrap. And of course we agreed and bought into the lifestyle of “use it once then throw it away” with little regard to what that would do to our world. We didn’t think about where all that trash would go, the forests that would be destroyed and the dioxins produced to make the paper towels, the diseases the sanitary pads would cause, the oil used for the plastics, and the strip mining for the foil. We just choose step by step, product by product to adopt a disposable lifestyle. Today such philosophy is so ingrained in our cultural psyche that most respond “gross” to the idea that the parchment paper wrapping butter originally had to be marketed as “re-usable” because consumers thought it was wasteful and expensive to throw away perfectly good parchment paper.

The messages we have been fed over the last century or so have done more to completely alter the social habits of our world than any drastic or violent event. There is no date one can point to, or singular event to be blamed, or even a particular person who can be held accountable. We let ourselves walk down the very path – often going quite willingly – that many of now are attempting to change. So while some are asking what sort of drastic event will force us to change our wasteful ways – (the melting ice caps, the extinction of polar bears, $6 a gallon gas prices???), others are simply trying to undo slowly the monster that was slowly created. Sure my decision to alter my shopping habits, or to recycle, or reduce my carbon footprint may not make a huge dent in the problem, but I am taking steps toward change and sending subversive messages. I am letting forces and ideas bigger than major corporations desperate for profit no matter the cost shape who I am. And I believe that a culture that has been shaped to believe in the message of destruction has the potential to be shaped into conscientious stewards as well. Sure those of us who care for creation and its inhabitants don’t have the money or the power to reach masses, but that should never stop us from sending out alternative messages. We may be labeled as extreme or ridiculed, but I take heart in the fact that the first public paper cup drinking fountain was attacked by a group of soldiers convinced that it represented a threat to society. Swaying popular opinion takes time, but lies can be unraveled and better choices can be made.

Social change can take many forms. Dramatic events make the history books, but the slow subtle capturing of the cultural imagination may have the most profound long term effects. The real question is – how can we be agents of this sort of change?

Read more

Tragedy, Guns, and Questions

Posted on

I can’t help but follow the news these past few days regarding the NIU shootings. The campus is a mere half hour from my house and we have friends who attended there. Although we personally don’t know anyone hurt in the shootings, it has touched this community. At church today we shared our thoughts and reactions to the event – wondering about the shooter’s family and asking what causes these sorts of horrific tragedies to occur.

That question of seeking to know why is a common response. This morning in the Chicago Tribune one perspective piece listed blog comments that attempted to give reasons why this happened. The comments of course cited the lack of gun control as well as the need for the right to carry concealed weapons. But the answers didn’t end there. Commenters blamed everything from bad parenting, to video games, to abortion, to homosexuality, to television for this incident. These voices seemed to think that if their particular pet peeve didn’t exist this shooting would never have occurred. Now I am all for gun control and am not particularly fond of violent video games, but I have to wonder at how quick people are to pass the blame and avoid any true involvement. I’m no fan of “black swan” philosophy either I might add. I think there is a place for trying to make sense of the world we live in and understanding why things happen, but I think such examinations should result in one choosing to take responsibility to help make things better.

In church this morning we also focused on the story in Acts 3 when Peter and John heal a lame man at the temple gate. They didn’t just give a beggar a few coins, or walk by and ignore him, they looked directly at him and healed the main cause of his problems. They didn’t just treat symptoms, or complain about the systems of injustices in this world, they took responsibility for doing something to help out. So we can bitch and play the blame game when tragedies occur, and perhaps that helps in the grieving process, or maybe we can address underlying issues and work for change. We might even be talking about the same issues, but I prefer the idea of seeking to be constructive during these times.

Read more

Adapting Our Stereotypes

Posted on

The world runs on stereotypes. We expect people to fit into certain boxes and shape our society around those boxes. Those that don’t fit, well, we just let them fall through the cracks. They don’t count, they aren’t normal, if they want to make it they should start acting just like everyone else. The problem is – more and more people are falling through the cracks and systems, flawed to begin with, are falling apart.

I was reminded of how our world is changing as I recently followed the saga of a local Chicago area 1st grader who was barred from attending school for nearly two months. This boy officially lives with his mom in the Homewood school district, but stays with his dad in a different district some nights (and occasionally with his grandmother as well). His parents are divorced and both work so-called “non-traditional” jobs (as in their hours aren’t 8-5). But in a school system that’s strapped for cash, the boy doesn’t spend enough nights at one house to quality for residency and so was barred from attending school. It took the state governor reading about the boy’s story in the newspaper for him to intervene and demand that the boy be allowed to attend school. (read more here and here). The boy and his family didn’t fit the mold and so he was allowed to fall through the cracks (thankfully the press can still do some good). But the thing is, his story is becoming more and more common these days. The world is changing.

I can’t help but think about how the church is responding to these changes. Are we making room for “nontraditional” families and schedules? Or do we just complain about divorce rates, the stability of the family, women working outside the home, and the taxes we pay to the schools to deal with people “like this”? Nurses, and artists, and traveling jobs are more the norm these days than ever. What was once considered “typical” barely exists anymore. The stereotypes and molds have crumbled, so why does the church pretend that nothings changed? A few years ago I was at a church that started a Saturday night service. This allowed a few families with “nontraditional” schedules (who had to work Sundays) to attend church. But there were others in the church who opposed the service saying the only reason people would come to church on Saturday night was because they were too lazy to get up on Sunday mornings.

Divorce is a reality, alternative families are a reality, and nontraditional schedules are a reality across every economic level these days. If all the church does is complain about it and try to make it stop, all that will happen is for the church to make itself obsolete. Refusing to accept the realities of this world in favor of some nostalgic stereotype of the world as we wish it would be doesn’t seem like a smart way to serve our communities. The church needn’t be a system that falls apart as culture evolves, but it does need to learn to adapt and stop rejecting change for the sake of rejecting change. Perhaps that means emerging, perhaps that means just opening its eyes to the community it serves. As a church leader I know I personally find it difficult to even know where to begin sometimes, but for the sake of the community I serve I at least want to try.

Read more

Defining and Defending the Blog

Posted on

This past week fellow Daily Scribe blogger Nick Norelli asked the following questions on his blog – “Is a blog a blog if it doesn’t allow comments? And if it is then is it a blog worth reading?” My initial response was to answer “no” to both questions. Something may perhaps fit the technical definition of a blog and may even contain good information, but in my opinion, a good blog is one that allows conversation, that invites interaction and doesn’t hide dissenting opinions. I find blogs where the authors pontificate on their own opinions but don’t allow questions or criticisms to represent the height of arrogance. It’s even worse when comments appear to be allowed, but dissenting opinions are deleted or edited or when only pre-approved voices are allowed access. Now I’ve deleted a handful of comments here, but only the spam and the super-creepy sexual ones. I prefer the open comment policy. But from my experience the bloggers who don’t allow comments aren’t interested in conversation at all – just in attempting to get everyone to think they are right. They tell the world what to believe, or (more commonly) ridicule ideas or people they don’t like and then walk away. Sure some bloggers don’t have time to respond to every comment, but not allowing commentary at all seems like a way of avoiding responsibility for one’s opinions. But then again, I’m not a fan of having some authority on high telling me what I should believe without allowing me to question or examine their ideas.

These questions reminded me of the recent discussion we had over at the Emerging Women blog regarding the benefits blogging has brought to marginalized voices. In the church world where the voices of white men predominate (or are at least perceived to do so), blogs have provided women and others on the margins with the opportunity to have a voice. So I find it interesting that it is generally white males in positions of power who don’t allow comments on their blogs or who complain (on their blog) about too many voices out there blogging. Why? Some dislike the open source nature of blog discussion preferring instead good old traditional authority. Others think there are too many voices out there for conversation to be meaningful and therefore blogging should be restricted (to those with authority perhaps?). Others don’t like giving the “uneducated” or “unsupervised” the opportunity to have a voice. And perhaps some just want theirs to be the only voice that gets heard.

I admit, there can be issues with blogs. I’ve encountered the crazies out there (blogrush is such great entertainment – did you know that aliens will aid Jesus in his second coming by bringing him to Roswell??), I see the dangers of posting pictures of yourself partying in Cancun that any potential employer can google, and I’ve stuck my foot in my mouth on a few too many occasions – but I still support the freedoms it brings. I like that blogging helps me to examine my world and think critically about ideas I encounter. I like that I get pushed to justify my opinions (not that I always succeed at doing so). I like that as a mom who is often confined to the house I can have adult conversations and maintain friendships with people around the world. I like that women are breaking free from the lies the church has told them and realizing that yes, they can do theology and have a voice in these sorts of discussions. Without the blog many post-evangelical women would be left with no one to talk to, no one to encourage them, and no way to move forward in their faith. So for a man who has never experienced the same confines and dismissal as these women to say that our blogs are just noise that need to go away in order for the important voices to be better heard really irks me (even though I know that most of the men making such statements are not necessarily directing them at women).

I’m all for the conversation. I want to learn from others and I want to question, challenge, and clarify what I read online. To me, such interaction is the trademark of a good discussion, a good educational setting, or a good church not to mention a good blog. I find it frustrating these days to listen to a sermon or read a book and not be able to push deeper by questioning it. I recall the most frustrating classes in college were the ones where the profs refused to respond to questions – instead saying meaningless things like “that’s a good question” and continue on with their lecture. I didn’t want more notes to take, I wanted to engage with what I was learning. Blogs have provided me with that opportunity to continue learning by engaging my world. Sure I enjoy “real-life” conversations, but once a month or so is far too infrequent and I don’t have the babysitting funds for much more (and don’t even get me started on the local Feminist Thought Club I tried to join which ended up being a bunch of college guys trying to pick up women…). I need more than that.  So I am grateful for blogs and for the discussion they should support. I am not afraid of the hard questions nor do I think the “simple questions” are just creating noise. The opportunity to read and engage daily with others is needed at this stage in my life. For me, it’s what helps me grow.

Read more

Thoughts on Lost

Posted on

So I feel like I should give some sort of commentary on the new season on Lost.  I’m just happy to jump back into the story.  I like following a mystery over a multi-year period as it just gets more and more complex.  And this season has thrown in twists that question any assumptions we have made so far in the series.  So a few things that have stood out to me this season –

So far the show has been a story of salvation/redemption.  The characters face the demons of their past and generally reach some sort of healing.  (well, then they die and “leave” the island…)  So I found the language used in the recap episode which asked “will the survivors be saved” intriguing.  They didn’t use the tern rescued, but saved.  But as we now see flash-forwards into the future, the demons remain for some.  I’m interested to see how this develops.

What is primary on my mind right now is the significance of the new character Charlotte Staples Lewis.  The writers of this show do not make throw away literary references, so the blatant C.S. Lewis reference has to mean something.  We already have a John Locke and a D. Hume.  And when Ben showed up using the name Henry Gale, any Wizard of Oz fan knew him to be a fake (although I found Ben’s acceptance of Sawyer nicknaming him Yoda this past week amusing).  So what’s the Lewis reference?  Is it a Narnia alternate world reference?  A Great Divorce purgatory reference? (which I know the producers have denied)?  A Screwtape allusion?  Or just a religious or academic idea?

Any ideas?

Read more

Children, Violence, and Veggie Tales

Posted on

This series of rambling questions is posted in the “why yes, I do have a toddler” category.

I am not a fan of violence and I try to prevent exposing my child to situations that model violence. That said, I have to wonder at some of the strategies to avoid exposing kids to violence and/or death, that take things (in my opinion at least) a bit too far. For example, I’ve had other parents freak out when I talk to Emma that the cute little cows and chickens at the zoo are like what we eat for dinner (apparently they didn’t want their kids to know that). And I once had a parent get upset because during a Children’s Church Easter lesson I told her elementary aged son that Jesus shed his blood on the cross and died. They were committed Christians, but she was appalled that I would mention the death of Jesus to children in church. I guess I was just supposed to stick to “safe” bible stories approved for children like Noah’s Ark and David and Goliath (sarcasm fully intended).

I was noticing this strange habit to shield children from death and violence the other day as I was watching Veggie Tales with Emma. Now I’ve been a fan of Veggie Tales for years (I did live in Wheaton during it’s heyday). On Friday nights when we weren’t studying, my friends and I would get together to watch Veggie Tale videos (aren’t you wishing you went to a Christian college too…). Anyway, what I noticed recently was the transformation over the years of the costumes for the Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything. In the original silly song by that name, Pa Grape sports a pirate hat complete with traditional skull and crossbones. But by the time those Pirates host the Silly Song countdown, the skull and crossbones have been replaced by a smiley face with an eyepatch (both can be observed in the video here). Then in the Jonah movie such references to real pirates have disappeared in favor of a tic-tac-toe game on the hat. The recent Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything movie (produced under new owners) returned to a design reminiscent of the skulls and crossbones but which uses a “P” and fork and knife.

Okay so perhaps I am a bit too obsessed with Veggie Tales, but I have to wonder what happened. Did Christian parents pressure them to remove the elements pertaining to death and violence? Veggie Tales has a history of giving into such parental pressure like when they changed the lyrics to “The Bunny Song.” Apparently parents didn’t like a song about idolatry that prompted kids to say they “don’t love my mom or my dad, just the bunny” or that they won’t go to church or school (the new version just mentions not eating soup and getting a tummy-ache from eating chocolate bunnies, it’s not nearly as catchy). Obviously the message is – children can’t understand idolatry and must be shielded from death and violence all the time.

Somedays I really don’t get it. We protect the kids by putting metal detectors in schools and refuse to let them wear multiple layers in class (for fear of hidden weapons). As a substitute teacher (who kept my winter coat on all day) I saw kids unable to hold pencils they were so cold and who stood outside in the sleet with no coat during a fire drill for over an hour. How did the rules protect these kids? Then there were the Chicago area police who recently had to escort an elderly Chinese man off a playground/park for practicing traditional exercises with short swords because (they said) it might be upsetting to people. Somewhat understandable, but then why are our parks and VFWs decorated with massive weaponry (tanks, bombers, cannons)?

Is there any standard? Do people have any clue what they are doing or what it is they are attempting to protect children from? When have we gone too far in the sheltering of children? Is refusing to talk about blood or bones or where or food comes from a deception on the level of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? Would we rather tell our kids lies about the world than introduce them to reality (in loving and appropriate ways of course)? Somedays I just have too many questions. Maybe I just need to stop watching Veggie Tales.

Read more

Ideological Luddites

Posted on

I’ve written often here about ethical consumption and the need to be aware of what we are supporting with our shopping habits. Too often we don’t care that women were abused in the factory that made our shirt or that children were kept in slavery to produce our chocolate. I have a real problem with treating people as objects to be manipulated, used, and destroyed – especially when there are things that could be easily done to make things better. But sometimes even I question the ideology behind some of these discussions.

For example, I am not a fan of hating technology because it is technology. I don’t think that scientific development is necessarily evil and that all technology should be feared (and shunned). Sure it changes the way the world functions, but I’m not the type that sees change as inherently evil. I’m not a fan of rampant advertising from companies that oppress their workers and try to convince people that the acquisition of more and more stuff is the goal of life, but I don’t boycott all TV, Internet, magazines, and billboards in order to avoid any exposure to such things.

Same with things like Facebook and blogging. Sure I am putting my personal information “out there” for any ad exec (or the US government) to access and target me with, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying the benefits of those mediums (for more on the uber-capitalistic big brother nature of Facebook check out this article (HT – Will Samson)). I’m not a fan of all aspects of the system, but I still participate it in (similar to how I engage with church or politics).

I have a hard time accepting the luddite tendency these days to condemn all forms of technology and media because they have the potential to be used by corrupt and controlling forces. I’ve more of a mind to embrace that which I enjoy, ignore that which is stupid, and oppose that which I see as wrong. I’m not a fan of the constant culture of advertisements we see, but I would rather be critically aware of the system instead of rejecting the entire system. I don’t mind the way something like Facebook works because I expected no less from them. If I tell the world that I like XY and Z products/bands/movies I am under no delusion that that won’t be used by someone somewhere. But I do have the choice to not allow advertisements on my own blog if I don’t want them there. I choose what I want to participate in. (although I do find Gmail ploy to scan my emails so they can target me with “Pastor Ringtones” and “Girlpower Marketing” creepy and annoying).

So to bring some sort of conclusion to my ramblings today (which I hope make sense outside my head although I am beginning to doubt that), I would just say that ideology must be coupled with critical thinking. To me there are differences between committing actual evil, encouraging the support of evil, and the potential to commit evil. And for all I prefer to help redeem the system instead of reject it altogether.

Read more