Julie Clawson

onehandclapping

Menu
  • Home
  • About Julie
  • About onehandclapping
  • Writings
  • Contact
Menu

Category: Culture

LOST Narrative

Posted on May 27, 2010July 11, 2025

It’s been a busy week around here and while I originally told myself I wouldn’t do this, I feel like writing something about the Lost finale since it’s all I’ve been thinking about this past week.  Let me say upfront, that I fall into the “I loved the finale” camp.  Even now, I have a hard time thinking about it without getting choked up by the final scene in the church.  Sure, there were a lot of mysteries left unresolved, but the finale moved us beyond the need to master and understand the Lost universe.  To leave no loose ends would have turned Lost into a formula to be packaged instead of the story about life and community that it was.  But then again, I’m a Christian; my day to day life is about following a path of unresolved mysteries written about in book full of loose ends.  I think my life would feel hollow if everything I did or believed or if every person I met or event I attended made perfect rational sense or fit seamlessly into a narrative arc with a structured plotline.  Lost subverted the standard trite entertainment storyline, and left those mysteries wide open, leaving us with a story that pushed the boundaries of what modern storytelling is even allowed to do.

Lost, a story about the redemptive power of community, forced the viewer to enter into the communal act of storytelling.  Instead of consuming a product that told us what to think or enjoy, or even what questions we should be asking, Lost provided the space for the viewers to participate in the unfolding narrative.  Our story intersected with the stories of the passengers of Oceanic flight 815; who we were, what we valued, what truths mattered to us simply became another thread in the developing story.  The questions we had, the mysteries we debated were not thrust upon us by the writers of the show, but formed through the community brought together around the common center that was Lost.  The finale gave us a glimpse of how important a community formed around a certain event can become, and invited us as viewers to continue to create meaning out of the never ending intersection of our own stories.

This isn’t what TV is supposed to be about; this isn’t what modern storytelling is even about.  And it’s certainly not what the modern American individualist has been conditioned to be all about.  But the way Lost captured our attention and the way it (especially the finale) connected us on a visceral level to the longing to be a part of something bigger than just ourselves demonstrated that perhaps “the way things are” is not how they are meant to be.  “Live together or die alone” was a central theme to the series, utterly undercutting the messages most of us have been taught to believe our whole lives.  Participating in community, understanding the world and even our whole lives as communal rather than individual acts, is unsettling and challenging to some, but spoke to hearts of millions of viewers who were all wanting to be part of something more.  Perhaps it is just that Lost was truly the first postmodern television series, but it took the pieces of what was expected of a TV drama, and handed them to the audience to hold in faith.  That act of trust allowed us to then step outside the binds of convention and discover larger truth that held far more meaning than a momentary “a-ha” ever could have dreamt of.

In reflecting on these themes in the Lost finale, I was reminded of this paragraph from Colin Greene and Martin Robinson’s book Metavista: Bible, Church, and mission in an Age of Imagination – The world we inhabit is a labyrinth of unfinished narratives, stories and plots.  As we intentionally or accidentally bump into them and enter these often strange, perplexing and disquieting worlds, so we become implicated in their intertwining, overlapping, sometimes imploding and at other times rapidly expanding plots and subplots.  As George Steiner contends, we may have to make a wager on transcendence, that there is in fact a hidden code, teleology, or design to these narratives that it is our task to decipher.  But to do so necessitates that we construe the text, the story or the plot in a particular fashion.  To refuse to do so as individuals and communities is to refuse to indwell the text and to become hearers only of the word and not doers (Jas. 1:24-25).  In other words, what has taken place is a failure of constructive imagination.

Lost has changed the way television works.  Sure, the old patterns of merely entertaining an audience and feeding them the nightly moral of the story will continue.  But with this one show, we were invited to not just reflect on the nature of community but to enter into the communal act of creating our own meaning out of our intersecting threads.  Our entire life experience – the books we’ve read, the films we’ve viewed, the philosophies we’ve debated, the religious paths we’ve trod – contributed to the construction of this particular narrative.  We had to take that wager on transcendence and were rewarded with a mirror into our own souls.  Storytelling must change in the postmodern world as our apparent interconnectedness is unavoidable.  Lost was the herald of that change.

 

Read more

Evangelical History

Posted on May 19, 2010July 11, 2025

I recently stumbled across the book The Young Evangelicals by Richard Quebedeaux. Published in 1974, it gives a sociological overview of evangelicalism in America and the emergence of a (then) new generation of Evangelicals. The author seemed to have hoped that this new generation (who were more globally minded and service oriented than their fundamentalist counterparts) would define the future of the movement. Of course in hindsight, there was a backlash against these more progressive voices (i.e. Jim Wallis…) and the Religious Right ended up gaining the dominant voice in the evangelical world.

What I found fascinating though was seeing a picture of Evangelicalism from this time period that mirrored exactly what I grew up with in the 80’s and 90’s and that still exists today. The young evangelicals of the 1970’s did influence certain streams of evangelicalism, but this more fundamentalist variety retained a dominant voice. Interestingly enough, the streams had so diverged by the end of the 1970’s that people today in either camp are often surprised that the other exists. It’s like how repeatedly on this blog when I share my personal church experience there are always a couple of people who say that I am misrepresenting evangelicals with my portrayals. Of course, not all evangelicals are the same, the stream they know and the stream I know are just very different. I just wish the discussions could sometimes get past the debate of “whose evangelical experience is correct?”

So for instance, take this passage from the book on the role of women in traditional evangelical churches (note – Orthodox here refers to the new orthodoxy of doctrinally correct evangelicals)

Orthodoxy has not yet taken Women’s Liberation seriously. In almost all non-Pentecostal Evangelical or Fundamentalist denominations, women are not ordained to the ministry. “Unmarriageable” types, however, may be encouraged by their churches to make the ultimate sacrifice – to become a missionary. Single females are welcome on the mission field, but not in the home pulpit. Alternatively, an aspiring young lady with a graduate degree in theology might be called by an Orthodox church to become an unordained director of Christian education – for less pay than her ordained male counterpart would get for the same job. But, for a marriageable young lady in the typical Fundamentalist or Evangelical congregation, the highest vocational aspiration she can have is to become the wife of a minister. Every Orthodox pastor – lest he be regarded as a playboy or, worse yet, a homosexual – must have a wife. In taking on a minister, the young woman will lose her identity completely. The ideal pastor’s wife is simply an extension of her mate – sweet, sociable but not aggressive, talented, above reproach in her behavior and, above all, entirely submissive to the will and career of her husband. As such, she becomes a “nonperson” in every sense of the word. P.58-59 

That perfectly describes (in far more blunt language than anyone would ever use today) the sort of evangelicalism I grew up in and still encounter on a regular basis. But many of the women I encounter online (i.e. those who already are educated and progressive enough to be participating in discussions about theology and religion), do their best to deny that women are ever treated that way within the evangelical world they know. While some of them do eventually take the time to reflect and admit that their voice has at times been silenced, they have never had to truly be seen as a “nonperson.” In my experience though women that are taught to lose their identity are also told that they shouldn’t think for themselves, and therefore rarely are present in conversations on religious matters. But it breaks my heart to see generations of women continuing to be taught to be nothing. I grew up in that environment and still have a foot in that world so I know it’s out there. But for many progressive evangelicals (or at least those with progressive evangelical roots), it can be easy to forget history and not grasp the nuances of our differences.

In some ways, just getting a glimpse of this history and understanding differences is helpful. I also wonder though if finding ways to say engage these “nonperson” women and help the ones who are cracking under the pressure of years of suppression of the self would be easier if we all were just open and honest about the sorts of pain that occur in the church without fearing tainting our own church’s reputations due to guilt by association? I don’t know, but sometimes a good understanding of where we all have come from helps mitigate that fear.

Read more

Packaging the Voice of the Other

Posted on April 27, 2010July 11, 2025

After the synchroblog last week and all the discussions surrounding the question of if the emerging church is too white, I’ve had a number of interesting discussions regarding the ways in which the voice of the subjugated other (subaltern) finds a space to be heard. For better or worse, I want to think out loud here and blog through a couple of those discussions that have really been running through my head these past few days.

A topic that I’ve repeatedly returned to this past year or so are the ways we have to contain the voice of the other in a safe and nonthreatening package in order to begin to hear it. In its most negative fashion this involves the essentializing and the trivializing of the other. We reduce other cultures to just the physical artifacts of their culture – their food, their music, their dance, their tourist appeal. Being open to the voice of the other simply becomes being willing to eat a new type of food, watching a film about an African safari, or putting on a cd of “world beat” music. On one hand, I know people who are so closed off to understanding anything outside of themselves that they can’t even accept these essentialized versions of the other. From those who think it is too exotic or weird to try new foods to those who think it is un-American to eat tacos, stepping outside of the known can be difficult for some people. That said it is often far easier to contain different voices in our interpretation of their cultural trappings or in an amusing stereotyped version of themselves than to actually engage.

So I find it interesting that one of the few places in American culture where the non-white male is allowed a central role and non-essentializing voice in the realm of sci-fi and fantasy. I first started think about this awhile back when I read the plea to Pixar to make movies about “non-princess girls and the adventures they go on.” So many of the movies and books targeted to children are about boys and their adventures (with the occasional girl sidekick). If there is a widely popular story of a girl going on an adventure it almost always takes place in a fantasy world. Lucy steps through the wardrobe into Narnia, Alice falls down the rabbit-hole into Wonderland, Dorothy is whisked away in a twister to Oz, Meg travels along the tesseract. Apparently little girls doing strong things like adventures can’t happen in real life, so they must be told in the realm of fantasy. (all those character’s mental stability is questioned when they return to the real world as well). Women having a voice and strength and power is a safe topic if it is contained by fantasy.

This ability to safely present the voice of the other under the guise of fantasy is well known in the world of Star Trek. When the first Enterprise embarked on its five year mission it truly went where no one had gone before by challenging the way race was portrayed in Hollywood. Women and minorities were cast as scientists and officers instead of in stereotypical roles (even as they still made use of stereotypes). The first interracial kiss on television was between Captian Kirk and Lt. Uhura (although to do so they had to pretend Uhura was possessed by a white alien at the moment). Challenging those boundaries through the setting of  futureistic outer-space was the safe way the conversation could be handled by the average viewer.

I recall reading an interview with one of my favorite actors, Alexander Siddig, on why he appreciated his role at Dr. Bashir on Star Trek: DS9. He said that for the first and only time in his life he wasn’t cast as “the Arab” instead Star Trek gave him the chance to play a brilliant doctor who just happened to be Arab. Since the series ended (and especially since 9/11) he has only been offered roles of strictly Arab characters – generally as some sort of terrorist. (since the interview he has played the non-race restricted roles of the Angel Gabriel in The Nativity Story and Hermes in Clash of the Titans – once again both roles set in the realm of fantasy and the supernatural). In the “real world” we are only comfortable seeing the Arab man as a terrorist, it is only in fantasy that he can have a voice as a person and not just a racial stereotype.

I am really torn with this “safe packaging” approach to listening to and respecting the voice of the other. It is demeaning and essentializing to say that women or minorities can only have a voice in the most trivial of ways or in futuristic or fantasy realms. But at the same time, presenting visions of the way we want the world to be through story form is the easiest way to get people’s subconscious to change. There is power in story and certain people who might resist respecting someone different from them in real life can suspend disbelief within the confines of the “impossible.” I guess what I am wondering is, can we even say the subaltern has a voice if it only appears within these sorts of safe packaging? Is that a real voice? Should this habit be undermined, or is it the best we have to work with at the moment?

Read more

Making a Difference

Posted on April 5, 2010July 11, 2025

Do you ever wonder what difference acts of justice really make. “Why bother changing my light bulbs to CFLs?” “Can buying fair trade really help farmers?” “Do my consumer choices really matter?” In other words, how big of an impact can one person really have?

I address these questions (and then point out why I think those questions miss the point) in a new post I have up at RELEVANT Magazine’s Reject Apathy Site. So if you’ve ever wondered about what sort of impact you can really have, I suggest you check out my post and then share your thoughts!

Read more

The Jewish Roots of Christianity

Posted on March 10, 2010July 11, 2025

I was intrigued recently over a story I saw on the news about a Chicago man who faces possible jail time for taking his daughter to church. Apparently in the custody settlement with his ex-wife (a Jew), Joseph Reyes (a Catholic) was barred from exposing this daughter to anything but the Jewish faith. He then very publicly took his daughter to church and is now facing potential jail time for that act. While strong arguments could be made in this particular case that this man acted like a jerk and that custody rulings are often unfair to fathers, what I find most fascinating is the argument he is using in his defense. Basically, Reyes argues that he did not break any court order since Catholicism is a derivative of Judaism. He asserts that he simply exposed his daughter to the teachings of the greatest Jewish rabbi ever.

I saw his lawyer make that assertion in a TV interview, and the reporter could barely hold it together, saying “what idiot fed you that line?” The lawyer simply said that most Christian theologians would say that Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, to which the reporter said something along the lines of “good luck with that.”

On the human level, I wish these parents weren’t using their daughter as a pawn in their bitterness and revenge games. I also don’t claim to understand the struggles parents of differing traditions face in choosing how to expose their children to the diversity of their faiths. But on a theoretical level, I am interested in how this has played out. I know that the theological emphasis on the historical roots of Christianity is fairly recent, and that a willingness to see Jesus as the Jewish rabbi he was has been slow to emerge. But one would think there are enough of those cheesy “My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter” bumper stickers around that the wider culture would catch on that Christians are finally acknowledging our roots. I honestly don’t know of any Christian who wouldn’t say that our faith is based in Judaism, worships the same God, and treasures at least some of the same scriptures (it is a very different story when it comes to acknowledging the mutual roots of our faith with those who practice Islam).

Granted, most of the public perception of Christians is that of hate-filled crusaders fighting to keep away those that are not exactly like them. Since there is such a poor history in how Christians have interacted with Jews in the past, no wonder people would be surprised to hear a Christian claim roots in Judaism (especially for such manipulative ends). I doubt this case will spark real theological dialogue, but I find myself wondering what can (or should) be done to help promote our commonalities. Christianity cannot be understood apart from Judaism (wouldn’t exist apart from it). How can that best be discussed in the wider culture without prompting displays of incredulity?

Read more

International Women’s Day

Posted on March 8, 2010July 11, 2025

Most countries around the world are celebrating a holiday today. While here in the United States we might have a few blog posts and an auxiliary lunch or two, other countries are hosting parades and setting aside time to honor women. For today, March 8, is International Women’s Day. A national holiday in some countries, this is the day set aside to mark the economic, political and social achievements of women. Of course, just mentioning the day’s existence prompts some to ask “well, why isn’t there an International Men’s Day?” In response I’d echo my mom’s reply when on Mother’s Day I would ask her “why isn’t there a kid’s day?” and she would say “because every other day is kid’s (men’s) day.”

But the fact remains, if women truly were treated as equals, valued for our contributions, respected for our ideas, and not assumed to be inferior or incapable in any way, then there would not need to be a day to bring attention to the achievements of women. If women commonly weren’t passed over for jobs, paid less for doing the same work as men, mocked for trying to get ahead, and told that they are only worthwhile as nurturers or pleasure-providers then perhaps the reminders of what women are capable of wouldn’t matter. I have of course seen great advances made in women being respected as whole people and have personally witnessed hearts soften as hatred melts away. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t still struggles.

All too often men feel threatened by the idea that women are capable and worthy of respect. To them, treating women as equals implies some sort of competition – taking away their opportunities and challenging their manhood. I’ve had guys tell me that women should be barred from working outside the home because they take jobs away from men who need them. I’ve been told that in suggesting that the specific qualities of a woman would be helpful in a certain job that I am preventing the best person for the job (a man) from getting it. That all women have to offer that men can’t is their victim status, so why bother with women at all. That God would never have allowed patriarchy to exist and men dominate women unless that was the way it was intended to be. Absurd as these arguments are, I still hear them on a regular basis.

I know a lot of this is based on cultural conditioning. Men are taught to define their very worth by their ability to have power over something. To treat women as equals to be respected challenges that conditioning. Unfortunately, the common response to this is not to unlearn those cultural lies, but to lash out against women and reassert power. Men who respect women, champion their achievements, and fight for their inclusion are condemned alongside women as being less than “real men.” It’s hard not to see why we still need a day to be reminded of what women have done and our ability to capably serve society. We know it’s not about competition, having power over others, or declaring a winner. We just wish certain men would get over seeing us as threats and start productively working for a better world together.

This desire on behalf of women is nothing new of course. I found it fascinating to read recently one of the first English feminist pamphlets written by a woman. Rachel Speght was the daughter of a Calvinist minister who later married another Calvinist minister who wasn’t afraid to encourage men to a more loving and Christ-like attitude towards women. In 1617, she published under her own name (rare for women in those times) A Mouzell for Melastomus (A Muzzle for the Evil-Mouth) in response to a booklet detailing why all women are corrupt and should be despised by Joseph Swetman (often referred to as “the woman-hater”). In it she implores men to stop showing ingratitude to God by treating the women around them as less than the equal partners God created them to be –

Let men therefore beware of all unthankfulness, but especially of the superlative ingratitude, that which is towards God, which is no way more palpably declared, then by the contemning of, and railing against women, which sin, of some men (if to be termed men) no doubt but God will one day avenge, when they shall plainly perceive, that it had been better for them to have been borne dumb and lame, then to have used their tongs and hands, the one is repugning, the other in writing against Gods handy work, their own flesh, women I mean, whom God hath made equal with themselves in dignity, both temporally and eternally, if they continue in the faith: which God for his mercy sake grant they always may, to the glory of their Creator, and comfort of their own souls, through Christ Amen.

This is my story. It is the world I still encounter and the plea I make every day. I echo the words written nearly 400 years ago asking that men stop mocking God in their treatment of women. We’ve come a long way, but still have a long way to go. This is why I find International Women’s Day important – we still need these reminders and the encouragement that we can do more.

Read more

Wheaton and Evangelical Trends

Posted on February 21, 2010July 11, 2025

I admit I’m disappointed in Wheaton College’s choice of Philip Ryken as their new President, but I guess I am not really surprised. I was one of the alumni that were encouraging the college to move forward as an institution with academic integrity in our increasingly globalized world by choosing a woman or a minority to head the college during these turbulent times. To remain a prophetic and respected voice within the Christian community, in my opinion the college needed the specific qualifications of those who have lived on the margins of power and privilege within the religious world. These voices are no longer minority voices and can no longer be silenced and ignored within the Christian community. Wheaton would have benefited from proactively and symbolically embracing the realities of our changing world. Instead they chose a leader to navigate them into this future who actively resists listening to minority voices and insists on women having no voice in the church. It is disappointing, and I feel that Wheaton cannot remain the “Harvard of the evangelical world” in choosing such a path. But, like I said, it isn’t surprising.

Philip Ryken fit a role. The college wanted someone conservative and Reformed and he fit that part. What I find interesting is that a majority of the Twitter responses I am reading about his selection are along the lines of “Praise God! Wheaton will remain faithful to orthodox Christian truth!” I find it most interesting because when I mentioned the selection of Ryken to my conservative evangelical family and friends, their response was “why is Wheaton abandoning biblical truth in this way?”

I live in Texas where Dispensationalism is still in favor. Fifteen years ago when I chose to attend Wheaton one of the main reasons I chose the college was because with dispensational Duane Litfin at the helm, I (and my parents) were sure the college would uphold “orthodox biblical Christianity.” As we saw it, Christianity as interpreted by Ryrie, Scofield, and Moody was the one true way it had always been forever and ever amen. And at the time, just a few years after Litfin’s appointment, so did most of the evangelical world. In the 1980’s and 90’s Dispensationalism was the trendy pet theology of evangelicals (although we referred to it simply as “Absolute Unchanging Truth”). The time was ripe for Wheaton – the voice of the evangelical world – to choose a dispensationalist to lead them (and for science fiction books about the end times (presented as biblical truth of course) to become nationwide bestsellers).

But a lot changes in fifteen years. Dispensationalism is no longer the precious darling of the evangelical church. Absolute Unchanging Truth has shifted and a different faction is now in favor. No longer are our views of the end times and the Holy Spirit the litmus tests of our faith, but instead whether or not we sign the dotted line in agreement with Calvin and penal substitutionary atonement. Not that Reformed theology is necessarily anything new, it just has never been so popular to be young, restless, dogmatic, opposed to women, and reformed. The shift to following this trend is so pervasive, that apart from my Texas dispensationalist friends who are horrified at Ryken’s appointment, most evangelicals are praising God that “orthodox Christian truth” will be upheld at Wheaton. If I had stopped to think about these popular trends in evangelicalism, I should have expected the appointment of someone like Ryken. (actually I did briefly consider it, but thought they would go with a different alum and Reformed celebrity – John Piper. But I quickly suppressed thinking about that possibility).

The thing is, Wheaton is no stranger to riding the shifting waves of “orthodox Christianity.” The college was founded as a Wesleyan institution, and became Wheaton College in 1860 when abolitionist Jonathan Blanchard in his postmillennial social gospel passion dedicated the college “For Christ and His Kingdom.” The purpose of the college was to work for the kingdom of God here on earth – to right the wrong of slavery and establish on earth as it is in heaven. But of course that particular theological perspective fell into disfavor after the First World War. The college even changed its Statement of Faith to then support premillennial eschatology. When I attended, I was told that the school motto “For Christ and his Kingdom” referred strictly to heaven, since the Kingdom of God could never actually be among us. So I really should not be surprised that the college once again is changing its theology by affirming the reigning popular theory of the day (which of course will always be designated “historic orthodox Christianity”).

I’m personally no longer Dispensational, and I’ve never been Reformed, so those are not my orthodoxies – which perhaps helps me have a bit of perspective on this event. So like I said – I’m not really surprised, but I am disappointed.

Read more

Reconnecting with Our Food

Posted on February 19, 2010July 11, 2025

Farming is trendy again thanks to Facebook.  The simulation game Farmville allows the otherwise farming ignorant to participate in the growing and caring of plants and animals.  It’s addicting and popular, and I’ve even heard it lauded as a great tool for connecting children to the actual sources of our food.

It’s no secret that in modern America, we are disconnected from the food we eat.  Most kids couldn’t tell you where food comes from beyond the grocery store shelves.  Hence, the excitement on the part of some that a computer game is helping kids understand that the food we eat is grown.  On farms.  While I’m not sure that the immediate gratification of harvesting a virtual crop connects children with the earth in quite the same way as actually getting dirt under their fingernails, I resonate with the need to alter this disconnect we have with food.

I have friends who will eat chicken or steak as long as it is not on the bone since that reminds them that it came from an animal.  I’ve had parents at a petting zoo yell at me for mentioning to my daughter that the turkeys we were viewing were like the turkey we ate at Thanksgiving.  I’ve been told by others that they would rather just not know if there are pesticides on their produce or hormones in their meat.  We have disconnected ourselves so far from the sources of our food that we often not only don’t know what we are eating, but we are no longer aware of the implications of our food choices.

But just because we aren’t aware doesn’t mean that our choices don’t have impact.   Disconnecting ourselves from our food, disconnects us from the land, from the people growing our food, from the people receiving our food, and from our God who calls us to care for the earth.

God called creation good and commanded us to steward this earth.  But often we act as absent caretakers, outsourcing the care of the earth to others and losing that intimate connection with God.  This broken spirituality is reflected in our broken earth.  We allow others to destroy fields and groundwater with the excess use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers; we allow animals to be abused and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones; we allow field workers to be mistreated and exposed to hazardous working conditions.  Our food choices have consequences even if we are unaware of the problems they are causing.

I recently met two students who had visited relatives in Mexico for Christmas and were surprised to find oranges everywhere they went there.  The town they visited grows oranges, but that year the companies that buy their crops offered so little for their oranges that it wasn’t worth their effort to pick them.  So the workers earned nothing for their crop and hard work that year.   The students for the first time saw their connection to the food they buy, realizing that buying oranges in the U.S. directly links them to the families they spent the holidays with.

Or consider rice.  Government subsidies encourage the production of more rice than we will ever need each year in America.  So the rice gets sold overseas, often very cheaply to countries where the U.S. has trade policies guaranteeing that imported U.S. goods will not have tariffs or taxes imposed on them.  When a local market gets flooded with cheap food from the U.S., native farmers get put out of business.  They can’t compete with the subsidized food and so the local food supply dwindles and the country becomes reliant on imported food.  When the cost of that food rises unexpectedly, like rice did in 2007, the local people can no longer afford to buy the imported goods and have no local alternatives to turn to.  In the case of Haiti this lead to people literally eating mud to assuage their hunger and taking to the streets in riots.

Or take the migrant workers in Michigan who send their young children out into the fields to pick blueberries because the wages they earn are not enough to sustain their family.  The field owners turn a blind eye, allowing the law to be broken by having six year olds pick the berries we buy in the store.  Or take the families living in the rural areas around factory farms.  When a home is surrounded by literally thousands of cows, it becomes impossible to play outside because the stench is so great.  The local rivers and streams are too full of excrement runoff to swim or fish in, and even the well-water gives local families diarrhea.  The antibiotics given to the cows make that runoff breeding grounds for antibiotic resistant bacteria, causing deadly and difficult to treat illnesses for families who are often too poor to pay the high medical bills.  These families are paying the full cost of the cheap meat we consume.

When we start to see that food has a larger story than just appearing on our grocery store shelves, we see that it connects us to this world.  From the land it grows on to the people who grow it to the people who eat it, food affects us.  If we desire to end our habits of disconnectedness these are the stories we need to know – for only when we understand that we are connected to habits that hurt God’s creation and his people can we start to make changes that help heal.

The simplest change we can make is to start choosing to eat food that is good.  By good, I mean food that doesn’t hurt the earth by dumping toxins, drugs, and disease into our fragile land and food that was produced and sold fairly.  This may involve buying organic or fairly traded foods, but it also might involve getting to know the people who produce your food.  So frequent local farmers markets and get to know the farmers.  Reconnect with the land yourself by growing some of your own food – even a few herbs on the kitchen counter or a tomato plant on the balcony can bring us closer to the cycles of life God called us to tend.  Being aware and choosing to eat what is good will require diligence, research, and sacrifice and it often requires us to simplify and give up the indulgences of cheap but harmful food.  That is all just part of being connected.

Beyond choosing to eat differently, long term changes in our food system are needed to bring lasting healing.  The point of food should not be to get what we enjoy as cheaply as possible, but to nourish all people.  We can support farming reform by encouraging the government to subsidize healthy food not just the crops used to make junk food.  We can tell companies that as consumers we care about how they treat their employees, their animals, and the earth.  We can campaign for trade policies that don’t just benefit American interests, but respect and support the needs of local economies worldwide.  And we can raise our children to be connected – to not need a computer game to tell them where their food comes from, to understand how to care for the earth and its people, to eat simply and healthily, and to be responsible global citizens.

Food is never just food – it connects us to life, to relationships, to the world.  Eating with an awareness of those connections restores our spiritual relationship with creation and provides opportunities for us to love our neighbors and follow God.  It is time to reconnect with our food.

Read more

Hope and Despair for Haiti

Posted on January 13, 2010July 11, 2025

It’s been a week of strange juxtapositions.

Apparently in the American church, a star football player can say how he played all his games for Jesus and people respond with “awww, what a nice Christian boy.” But say that you are working to put an end to human trafficking in the name of Jesus, and people wonder if you are really a Christian.

043Then this morning I was at the gym watching the two TVs in front of me. On one was a story about a rich lady with a huge house who had started a rescue mission for disabled dogs. Each dog is given medical attention, a custom-made “wheelchair”, and lots of love and attention so they can live out their days as happy dogs. On the other TV were images from Haiti. A father carrying his young daughter whose face had been partly smashed-in. It sickened me to think that those dogs were getting far more spent on them and far better medical attention than that young girl ever would. Those dogs get to live as happy dogs, while that girl if she survives, will be deformed for life. With a facial deformity, she cannot get education or find a job. If she manages to not be trafficked into slavery as maid/sextoy in a wealthier house (Haiti being one of the worst offenders for child slavery), her only options will be to beg or prostitute herself in order to survive. She will become the “scum and riff-raff” that gets condemned for making poor countries the corrupt and sinful places many Western Christians see them as. We might pity her for the few seconds she is on CNN and maybe even send enough food to feed her for a few days, but we’d rather build retirement homes for dogs than do the radical work to change the system that oppresses her. What is our problem?

123And then there are the true scum like Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson who have pulled their typical jackass moves in the aftermath of this tragedy. Pat in your twisted rewriting of history you display perfectly the juxtaposition between what Jesus actually said and what you want him to have said. You want to blame tragedy on personal sins. You take an old Haitian MYTH and read it as fact to support your cause. Sure, the Haitians in order to explain all the shit that has happened to them have a myth saying that when the Spanish came to Hispaniola (the small island shared between the Dominican Republic and Haiti) they surrendered Haiti to the devil in order to dedicate the Dominican Republic to God. Maybe it helps deal with the pain of being a slave nation, that once they threw off the chains of slavery had the US lead a worldwide trade boycott of them and France force them to pay them pack for loss of slave revenue, and then who struggled to survive under that debt, and then were occupied by the US military in 1915 who slaughtered thousands of peasants, stripped their forests of valuable wood, and left the country barren, and who had to deal with the IMF and World Bank funding dictators who destroyed their country and left them with debt that was only forgiven a couple of months ago, and then another US occupation in 1994, and then with trade stipulations and tariff-free US goods that have destroyed their local economy. I would try to create a myth to explain away all that oppression too. But to twist it and say the Haitians deliberately sold themselves to Satan and are now being punished for their own sins (like emancipating themselves from slavery), just shows how out of touch you are with not only reality but with Jesus. When asked whose sin made a man blind, Jesus replied that no one had sinned but that this was a chance for him to be light to the world – to restore sight to the blind, to set the oppressed free. So get your history straight, or at least get Jesus straight and use this opportunity to be a light to the world instead of another harbinger of darkness.

078But then I see the wonderful outpouring of aid to Haiti juxtaposed against the fact that most of it will never reach the actual people who need it most. The government in Haiti is so corrupt that most aid that is sent to the country gets funneled into special-interests groups. The privileged just keep getting richer while the poor in Haiti are making mud cookies because they can’t afford food. So I want to just beg everyone to be careful where your money goes. Any relief that has to go through the Haitian government won’t reach the people. So support organizations that are on the ground with the people in Haiti. We’ve partnered with New Life for Haiti before – a group that works to build schools and clinics in the Marfranc region of Haiti. They are seeking aid now to help rebuild homes that collapsed in the earthquake. Bread for the World has also created a list of trusted agencies working to help the people of Haiti. The system needs to be fixed. We can’t put a bandaid on this wound and hopes it goes away. Unless we push for real change, more people will die, children will start being rounded-up and trafficked, starvation will slowly overtake the country, corporations will seize land from its rightful owners, and the 4,000 troops we are sending in will make Haiti a US occupied territory for the third time in a century. Haiti is the only country to successfully stage a slave-rebellion in the name of freedom. We need to help them be free – free from oppression, free from hunger, free from exploitation, and free from poverty.

My heart is breaking over Haiti. I see the state of Christianity in our country and I despair if with our shallow faith and judgmental hearts we can work for good in this world. But as messy and as hopeless as it all can seem, I realize I have no choice but to have hope.

Read more

Why N.T. Wright is Wrong About Social Media

Posted on January 5, 2010July 11, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

Read more
  • Previous
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • …
  • 19
  • Next
Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson
[email protected]
Writer, mother, dreamer, storyteller...

Search

Archives

Categories

"Everything in life is writable about if you have the outgoing guts to do it, and the imagination to improvise." - Sylvia Plath

All Are Welcome Here

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
fb-share-icon
Instagram
Buy me a coffee QR code
Buy Me a Coffee
©2026 Julie Clawson | Theme by SuperbThemes