Category: Culture

This has happened before and will happen again…

Posted on

My apologies for the title, I have Battlestar Galactica on the brain these days. But the phrase really summed up something I wanted to write about.

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

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

Now I admit, there is the temptation online to not present one’s true self to the world. I think using the internet for role-playing and gaming is one thing (come on, you can freaking FLY in Second Life!), but aside from people who are already social deviants I see most people being themselves online. For example, I recently decided to alter my blogroll to a list of people’s names. Aside from group blogs and the occasional anonymous blog, most people are known these days by their true identity and not just their blog name. That wasn’t the case when I first started blogging or interacting online. Back then, most people hid behind cute avatars and handles. Most of the blogs I read, especially those by women, were anonymous, but over the years people have moved towards being themselves by using their real name. Same thing with email addresses. It used to be that everyone had some personal descriptor/ alter-ego as their email – like JesusGirl98 or SurfrBoy123. And yes, my first email address was [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 the hell is it not real? Communication of this sort has existed for ages, blogs and Facebook and Twitter are just its newest forms. Back in college we had message board and blog posts – only they were of the paper and pen variety. Someone would write out a few paragraphs or pose a question and tape that paper to a wall in the student center or even in a bathroom stall. We would add our replies with pens. Same thing in grade school. We would fill notebooks with Facebook-esqe questions like “What are your favorite bands?” or” Where do you want to live when you grow up?” and pass them around class getting everyone’s responses. And go back a few hundred years. You have Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Door. You have pamphlets being printed to disseminate ideas, and counter-pamphlets appearing in return. Sure, it took longer, but its the same idea as blog posts. Or the way letters to the editor used to functions as a forum for discussion. Or even the popularity of pen-pals one would never meet. Communication of this sort has all happened before, so why is it that this time it isn’t real?

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

Read more

Encounters with Sexism

Posted on

Every now and then I get that slap in the face reminder that sexism is alive and thriving in our world. Sometimes it can be easy to think otherwise. I attend a church that affirms my value as a woman, I have intelligent friends, I participate in emerging church forums, and I live in a progressive town. So in my day to day life I can pretend that most of the world actually thinks I’m human.  And many of the people I know are uncomfortable taking a stand for women mostly because they don’t see any apparent problems.  Then come the wake up calls.

I started the week at a women’s book discussion at my church where we are reading through Sue Monk Kidd’s Dance of the Dissident Daughter. I love that story of one woman’s awakening, and it served as a significant part of my journey in affirming my worth as a woman. Our discussion this week focused on how language is still often used to demean women. When the worst insults in our culture are to call someone a girl, when women are still pressured to have sons, and apologize for birthing daughters, when in business meetings women are ignored, or forced to be and dress like men in order to compete – sexism is alive and well. The constant blows at who we are surround us, and we all lamented that when we point out this stuff we are dismissed as angry bitches. That whole discussion was reflective and theoretical, but then I went out this week and saw it all in play.

A couple weeks ago I signed a letter to the Presidential Selection Committee for my alma mater Wheaton College encouraging them to consider female and minority candidates for the next President of Wheaton. Dr. Duane Litfin is retiring after 17 years of leading the college with an ultra-conservative hand. He was selected to steer the college away from a perceived “liberal” turn in the 1980s. So he brought his dispensational, cessationist, anti-ecumenical and anti-egalitarian views to the college. My former pastor, a friend of his, told me as I headed off to college that Litfin’s greatest fear for the college was the growing amount of women entering the biblical studies field. And while I was there, great efforts were taken to promote “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” and silence the students for biblical equality groups. But now as he is leaving, there is a chance for the college to break those chains and take a stand for women. Yet even proposing that option has met with disdain. Responses to the mere suggestion of considering a woman or minority include – “You have got to be kidding me. Only in academia and government are such bogus voices funded and stroked. I feel specifically called to buy something with a pink ribbon emblem and then go wretch.” and “This is silliness. And it’s a classic example of what happens when people ignore the Pendulum of Truth” and “I do not think, however, that they should be set on finding a female or minority president. It is very likely that in doing that, they may end up with someone that will lead the school in a very dangerous direction.” Along with numerous assertions that the college should hire the most-qualified candidate, implying that a woman or a minority would not fit that bill. Sexism is alive and well.

Then here in Austin a couple of weeks ago, the DJ’s of my favorite morning radio show were suspended for using offensive language. The British radio host had used a phrase that sounded like a racial slur, and they laughed about the awkwardness of what her phrase sounded like. They were suspended without pay for a couple of weeks and forced to take cultural sensitivity classes. Since returning they have been very careful not to really say anything about other races, even stopping themselves in the middle of stories. But the use of women as insults has continued in full force. They constantly compare people to girls to show how weak and pathetic they are. They use references to women’s anatomy to insult people – especially the ever-popular term “douchebag.” Lesson learned – we have to be sensitive to other races but women are scum to be used however we like.

Similar lesson from this whole recent controvery about the Deadly Viper book. In the promo for the book about men’s intigrity published by Zondervan, the authors made use of Asian cultural references in really inappropriate and insensitive ways. It was obviously offensive, and a number of us in the Christian community pointed out that offense and asked for an apology. I fully affirm that an apology was needed to my Asian brothers and sisters, and the Christian community in general. At the same time, I was disturbed that many of the people calling for an apology were saying stuff like “I think the content of the book is great, I just have problems with the culturally insensitive packaging.” I think they were saying that to be nice and build bridges, but in all truth the curriculum is full of sexist stereotypes that use women as insults. The authors even have a video on their website promoting their Mancave series that is simply a series of gender stereotypes where manly=good and girly=bad. I applaud the efforts to stand up to insensitive racial stereotypes in the church, but wish people hadn’t affirmed gender stereotypes in the process. And I really wonder if that same group of people would put forth the effort to take a stand for treating women in the church with respect just like they asked for Asians in the church to be treated with respect. I want to believe they would, but far too often I see sexism protected by the shield of “theology” in ways that racism can never be in our modern world.

Sexism is alive and well. This week has just been a reminder of how far we have to go until women are respected as fully human and not demeaned for the sake of entertainment.

Read more

Smashing Economic Idols

Posted on

So I’ve been having a few interesting conversations about my book Everyday Justice recently. I was being interviewed for a very conservative Christian talk radio show and when I mentioned that a simple way to define biblical justice was “the practical outworking of loving God and loving others” I was told that I need to be careful about encouraging people to love their neighbor because that could lead to socialism. In the soundbite world of talk radio, there wasn’t a chance to challenge that assertion, so I changed tactics and tried to talk about the need for Christians to embrace the spiritual discipline of simplicity and not be overcome by consumerism. Once again I was contradicted by the host who told me that I shouldn’t suggest that people stop or lower their consumption because it is our duty to support the economy by buying stuff. At that point I realized that we were on totally different planets, civilly made my way through the rest of the interview trying to speak a language he might understand, and choose not to then listen for the next hour as he proceeded to tear apart everything I said.

I’m fine with people disagreeing with me or not liking the book. I get that. But his mindset reminded me of the economic idolatry that has crept into our faith. More and more I find Christians who instead of letting their faith influence their economics, they interpret their faith through their preferred economic system. I’ve had to listen to sermons where the pastor went off on how capitalism was the only biblical economic system. I’ve read the books where the guys say stuff like “because the Bible doesn’t talk much about economics we need to bring economics to the Bible.” I’ve encountered those who play the “socialism” card at the first sign of any critique of capitalism. And I’ve heard those claiming that economics are absolute, we can’t change the market so we shouldn’t bother trying even for good biblical reasons.

I get that’s it’s complicated. I get that we like to have our pet philosophies. I get that socialism can be evil too. But none of that excuses making economics into an idol. When our economic theory leads us to make excuses for the oppression of workers, we have a problem. When modern day slavery is justified as being “just the way the market works,” we have a problem. When making a profit becomes more important that the dignity of human beings, we have a problem. When the words of Jesus Christ are dismissed because they might support an alternate economic system, we have a problem. It is as simple as that. When our allegiance to an economic system has us making excuses for injustices then that economic system has become an idol. And idols need to be torn down.

I’m a capitalist. I’m not anti-globalisation. I don’t have any problem with people making money or looking out for their own interests. I don’t think communism or forced socialism are better systems. But there comes a point where we have to say to a system that oppresses – this is wrong and must be changed. This is difficult if not impossible if we have allowed economic theory to become an idol and usurp our faith. We need to be able to “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” (Col 2:8) Loving God and loving others has to come before Wall Street or Adam Smith – there’s no way around it.

So as inspiration to smash the idols that need smashing, I want to include the following verse. Brian Walsh, co-author of Colossians Remixed, recently posted a targum of Romans 1:16-32 over at the Empire Remixed blog, A targum is a means of interpreting scripture by rewriting it for a particular cultural setting. Traditionally a Hebrew practice, some use the practice today to apply the Bible to contemporary life. This Romans 1 targum addresses this affinity to make idols of economic systems. I highly recommend reading the entire piece, but I wanted to highlight this short section –

So here’s the sad truth, my friends:
this empire of greed,
this narrative of economic growth,
this whole house of cards is based on lies and deception.
This whole culture of consumption,
this whole empire of money,
is based on self-willed ignorance.

Creation proclaims a better way
because creation bears witness to a God of grace.
But we have suppressed this truth,
engaged in denial and cover-up.

Refusing to live a life of gratitude,
refusing to live a life of thanks to the God
who called forth such a rich creation,
refusing to honour this Creator God,
and embracing a culture of entitlement and ingratitude,
we abandoned the God of light and embraced the dark.

And in all of our complex theories
in all of our sophisticated and incomprehensible economic talk,
we became futile in our thinking
we ended up with lots of talk but no sense,
theories that are empty,
vanity of vanities.

And we thought that we were so wise,
we thought that we had it all figured out,
but the joke has been on us,
and it is now clear that we have been fools.

You see, that’s what happens when you get in bed with idols.
That’s what happens when you don’t image God in faithful justice,
but embrace graven images,
cheap imitations,
that look so good,
look so powerful,
but will always fail you,
will always come up short
because they are impotent.

Empty idols, empty minds.
Dumb idols, lives of foolishness.
Betrayal and disappointment.
Fear and terror.

Read more

Disability as Entertainment

Posted on

So I’m a fan of So You Think You Can Dance. I enjoy watching dance and I used to dance, so I like the show even though it is a mostly scripted reality TV program. At this point in the season they are just showing the try-outs – which predictably have the fools trying to get on TV alongside the good dancers and the poor folks who think they can dance but obviously can’t. But I’ve been bothered the past couple of seasons during the try-outs with how they deal with the handicapped dancers who come to give it a shot. It really hit home this week when they showed a one armed girl who had come to try out.

These handicapped dancers make it on the TV broadcast unfortunately because they make for good dramatic television. They get to tell their story and the judges get to do a teary-eyed moment before they tell them some version of “you really wouldn’t work for our program, but we are so proud of your courage.” Basically, “you look too weird and awkward to appeal to a wide audience but we will boost our ratings by using you to elicit pity and then move on”. It is never an affirmation of the person embracing their handicap and working with it, but always a pat on the back for choosing to live life out among regular people even though they are handicapped. Like with the one armed girl this week. Granted she had just lost her hand in the past couple of years, and so had to relearn how to do life, but even as the show commended her courage it couldn’t get past her handicap. As I watched her dance, I kept wondering why she wasn’t really using her half arm. It stayed close to her side and it seemed like she was hiding it. The judges then praised her for hiding her handicapped while she danced so that the viewers didn’t have to deal with seeing an imbalanced form.

I’ve been there. I recall during try-out week for drill team in high school, I was reminded over and over again that my arm might prevent me from doing the dances well – I would never look perfect alongside the rest of the team. I got the message and dropped out of try-outs. I stayed in the dance classes though as a teachers assistant and I took over teaching the special education students that had been mainstreamed into the class. The teacher wanted nothing to do with them or me and shuffled us off to the side. And I’ve mentioned here before about visiting children’s homes in Latvia where children born missing limbs are sent to live where the public won’t have to be confronted with them. I was appalled then, but I wonder how different that is from TV shows that parade us out there to show us pity but then still won’t accept us in their world as we are. (or support universal health care so that we handicapped folks won’t continue to be denied coverage for being born like this, but that’s a whole different issue…)

I don’t normally define myself as handicapped (or differently-abled or whatever the term is these days), but I also don’t try to hide that part of me. Missing my arm is just a part of who I am. I don’t want to be told that some day I’ll be perfect and have two hands in heaven just as much as I don’t want to be seen as a lesser thing to be pitied. Sure, I might need a little extra help here or there (there’s good reason why Mike does most of the diaper changing around here, one hand + poopy diaper + squirmy baby = disaster), and I’ve gotten used to the stares that constantly remind me that I’m not normal, but I’m not a circus freak here for your entertainment – and that includes those emotional tear-jerking TV moments. So I applaud those on the show who fight to get that which is different accepted as normal. The same-sex ballroom dancers are beginning to gain respect, perhaps one day handicapped dancers will be accepted as more than just subjects of our pity.

Read more

Is Intellectualism Arrogant?

Posted on

One of the talk that surprised me a bit from Matter ’09 was actually the final conversation on Romans 12 between Cassie Faulk and Bill Mallonee. They both explored the voice of the artist – Bill through his story and music and Cassie through a paper on interacting with art as a textual critic. In her paper (or at least what I remember of it) she asserted that in textual criticism one must act in humility towards authors, choosing to love both the author and the audience. She said she had problems with art that was ugly because it didn’t originate with an attitude of respect for the viewer. Similarily she said she dislikes art that is so complex that the average person can’t “get it.” As she put it, if you have to already know stuff in order to understand a work of art then that isn’t appreciation it is merely an affirmation of arrogance – showing off how much you already know. For her all interaction should be done out of humility.

But some of us were uncomfortable with the assertion that to apply one’s intellect or to call others to use their intellect is arrogant. Perhaps, as an academic she intended to only refer to the extremes of art and literature, but in the church world where anti-intellectualism is the norm I find her position dangerous. The treasured mantra in churches these days is that the bible is easy enough for a child to comprehend. While there may be a level in which that statement is true, the way it is used is generally to avoid or ridicule any learned approach to theology or biblical studies. Instead we get bible translations written at 6th grade levels and “bible studies” that are nothing more than copy a verse to fill-in-the-blanks. people get to pretend they actually are “studying’ something when all they are doing is regurgitating words without understanding their meanings in context. In fact this anti-intellectualism has become itself a source of pride, as anyone who tries to push deeper is mocked.

So I have an issue with saying that the need to be intellectually astute in order to understand something is simply arrogance. In my mind it is simply a means of getting at the complexities of the world. I don’t believe, for example, that if a person enjoys the show LOST they do so because they enjoy being arrogant. Yes, to get the show one has to be well read (or at least really good at google searches), but that just makes the show more interesting. I’ve heard people make fun of it and those of us who watch it because it is so complex, and to be thoughtful is in their world something to mock. But I don’t think the solution is so dumb everything down so that no one has to know much of anything as they engage the world around them. I want the news, or my TV shows, or my faith to make me think – to make me push beyond myself and go on that journey of discovery. I want the ah-ha moments when I see how elements of ancient Roman philosophy influence the writing of the epistles, or how ancient Egyptian culture helps LOST makes sense. It is about acknowledging the bigger world we live in, and that all of our stories have roots in each other’s stories. And it is about admitting that our response to the fact that God is big shouldn’t be to mock those that want to explore that complexity. To me it is more humble to admit that there is always more to learn – more ways to deepen the intellect – than to settle believing that one has it figured out enough to stop bothering.

But maybe that’s just arrogant of me…

Read more

Playing Children’s Games as Spiritual Practice

Posted on

If I could choose how I would like to spend the perfect evening, it would be hanging out with friends with good food and drinks playing board games.  I love strategy games like Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, and RISK, but I also enjoy fun group games like Apples to Apples and Balderdash.  For what it’s worth, a good round of Texas Hold’Em works for me too.  I enjoy the interaction, the intellectual engagement, and the general hilarity than ensues when friends simply have fun together.

 

That said, I sometimes have a hard time playing children’s games.  There is something tediously mind-numbing about painstakingly making one’s way to Candy Mountain in Candy Land or getting caught in the endless up and down circle of Chutes and Ladders.  Building up my Cootie bug, filling my Hi Ho Cherry-o basket, making pairs in Dora Memory, or matching all the pictures on my Zingo card just doesn’t capture my attention.  But my four year old loves it all.

 

Granted it comes as no big surprise that the child of a couple of board game lovers would like playing them herself (and I admit, I was the same way at her age).  It’s just that, from the mommy side of things, playing those games for hours on end can get a little old.  Now, I love spending time with my daughter, but after the fourth or fifth round of Candy Land as I’m sprawled out on the playroom floor, I sometimes have a hard time keeping my eyes open.

 

But for my daughter, it never grows old.  Each time she builds a Cootie bug, she gets excited about getting to make an entirely new creation.  Each card she turns over in Candy Land holds the possibility of adventures – to whisk her away at any moment to exotic locales like Gum Drop Mountain or the Candy Cane Forest.  Each spin in Chutes and Ladders holds the risk of plummeting her downward and losing all she has worked for or the reward of immediate ascension.  In short, in her life ruled by the power and whims of others (mom and dad), these games hold wonder and mystery.  With every spin of the wheel she enters into a magical world of unpredictability and excitement (not to mention repeated trips to every child’s dream land – the Candy Mountain).  These games are full of blessings she can delight in.

 

So even as I struggle to keep my eyes open as we play yet another round of her favorite games, I realize that I could learn a lot from my four year old about being spiritually present.  When looked at through the right eyes, life is mysterious and full of adventure.  I get to participate in acts of creation each day as I cook entirely new meals.  I am whisked away to exotic locations when I simply stop and notice the beauty of the world around me.  I don’t need the Candy Cane forest when I can lie under the trees with my kids watching the leaves flutter and the clouds float by.

 

I am so used to the ordinary being, well, ordinary, I forget to find the wonder in it.  But seeing my daughter find adventure in what I found tedious reminds me to shift my perspective.  The world is unpredictable and exciting and full of all sorts of blessings I can delight in – as long as I allow myself to be present in it and allow it to be those things.

Read more

Sight Pollution

Posted on

I find it increasingly curious the amount of rules certain sectors of our society have set up to prevent people from living green. Granted, the stated rationales are not strictly to prevent green living, but that’s the result nonetheless. Some of these rules make some sense. For instance, many communities have banned water recycling systems. So people can’t set up tanks that collect their used sink water to use to water their gardens. The rationale – a child might walk by and drink from the hose or sprinkler and get sick from recycled water. I understand the impulse (even as I also wonder why those child advocates don’t also complain that the typical garden hose contains lead).

What I don’t understand are the “sight pollution” complaints. The communities than ban clotheslines or gardens or solar panels or wind turbines because they are “unsightly.” While it’s disturbing that people these days would even consider gardens or clotheslines outside of the normal pattern of day to day living, I also don’t get why it is those things that are banned. These communities allow cookie cutter houses fitted with multiple satellite dishes. Garish banners and windsocks dangle from their porches and garden gnomes and polyresin angels peep out from their gardens. Come Fall, giant inflatable Winnie-the-Pooh vampires and mass-produced scarecrows adorn their lawns. Signs advertising their roofer, pool company, security system, or electric dog fence stand alongside pronouncements of what issue or candidate they are voting for. And yet they can’t dry their laundry in the backyard taking advantage of the benefit of sunlight to sterilize because some people say it pollutes their view. It’s not like the solar array is being built to block their view of a mountain range or the sunset over the lake, it’s all just part of all the other everyday stuff in their neighborhood. It’s so silly, that I really just wonder if it is an excuse spread by the electric companies. Of course they don’t want people going green, using alternative energy sources like the wind our the sun – it will make them lose money. But since they can’t say that they are too greed to take care of the earth, they introduce the idea of sight pollution – that it is offensive and inappropriate to have to witness environmentalism in action.

I don’t know. Anyone have any better ideas? I’m just trying to wrap my mind around why tacky yard art is okay but a clotheslines isn’t.

Read more

Food TV, Michael Pollan, and Generation X

Posted on

So I was fascinated by Michael Pollan’s recent (lengthy) article in the New York Times, Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch (thanks Will Samson for the head’s up). In it he takes aim at our cultural obsession with watching television about food while at the same time spending less and less time in the kitchen. While the article explores in depth the cultural and social issues surrounding food tv and cooking in our modern world, his main point is to assert that cooking is important and shouldn’t be abandoned. I generally love Michael Pollan, and aside from his digs in the article at stay-at-home moms and tall women, I agree with most of what he wrote. Cooking is important – it is healthier, cheaper, and better for you to cook from scratch. No argument there. I just don’t know if I would point a finger as vehemently at food television as he does. Pollan writes –

How is it that we are so eager to watch other people browning beef cubes on screen but so much less eager to brown them ourselves? For the rise of Julia Child as a figure of cultural consequence — along with Alice Waters and Mario Batali and Martha Stewart and Emeril Lagasse and whoever is crowned the next Food Network star — has, paradoxically, coincided with the rise of fast food, home-meal replacements and the decline and fall of everyday home cooking.

That decline has several causes: women working outside the home; food companies persuading Americans to let them do the cooking; and advances in technology that made it easier for them to do so. Cooking is no longer obligatory, and for many people, women especially, that has been a blessing. But perhaps a mixed blessing, to judge by the culture’s continuing, if not deepening, fascination with the subject. It has been easier for us to give up cooking than it has been to give up talking about it — and watching it.

Today the average American spends a mere 27 minutes a day on food preparation (another four minutes cleaning up); that’s less than half the time that we spent cooking and cleaning up when Julia arrived on our television screens. It’s also less than half the time it takes to watch a single episode of “Top Chef” or “Chopped” or “The Next Food Network Star.” What this suggests is that a great many Americans are spending considerably more time watching images of cooking on television than they are cooking themselves — an increasingly archaic activity they will tell you they no longer have the time for.

…

The Food Network has helped to transform cooking from something you do into something you watch — into yet another confection of spectacle and celebrity that keeps us pinned to the couch. The formula is as circular and self-reinforcing as a TV dinner: a simulacrum of home cooking that is sold on TV and designed to be eaten in front of the TV. True, in the case of the Swanson rendition, at least you get something that will fill you up; by comparison, the Food Network leaves you hungry, a condition its advertisers must love. But in neither case is there much risk that you will get off the couch and actually cook a meal. Both kinds of TV dinner plant us exactly where television always wants us: in front of the set, watching.

Let me first, say I have a love/hate relationship with the Food Network. I was addicted to it during my pregnancies when I was so sick I had to be hospitalized for severe dehydration. I couldn’t eat much less cook, so I lived vicariously through the Food Network. That said I really can’t stand to watch Rachael Ray, Sandra Lee, Paula Deen, Bobbie Flay or Guy Fieri – but I am a huge fan of all things Alton Brown and Iron Chef America, as well as a Top Chef fan. I admit that most of those shows have little do do with cooking, and are at best simply food porn. Some people like to watch guys dress up in costumes and chase a ball around a field for entertainment, and some of us like watching a chef attempt to make a gourmet meal on a dorm-room hot plate. To each her own.

But.

Every person I personally know who watches cooking shows says it has inspired them to spend more time in the kitchen. Far from being the cause that keeps us away from the stove, it has been the impetus that brought us back. You see, we at the tail-end of Generation X are the children of the 80’s, in other words, the children of convenience. We grew up on diets of poptarts and hotpockets. Dinner was the McDonald’s drive-thru or maybe Chili’s on special occasions. I remember my mom mocking a friend who claimed to always make her soups from scratch – condensed Campbells was our normal fair. Just recently I had to explain to my husband that you could make mayonnaise from scratch. We are the generation that never learned to cook. Most people I know would have no idea how to make their own pasta sauce – or even why they should. That is until they started watching the Food Network. All of a sudden a generation that never had the opportunity to learn how to cook is abandoning the drive-thru and learning a new skill. On numerous occasions I have watched a Food Network show, downloaded the recipe and tried it myself. Recently a friend told me that her tween daughter one evening paused the Food Network show she was watching and went to the kitchen and made the featured dish. For me and many of my friends, the Food Network has taught us how to cook.

But not only are we learning how to cook, we are rethinking what we are eating. When we see Michael Simon say he would never use frozen boneless skinless chicken breasts or hear Jamie Oliver discuss seasonal produce, some of us start asking why. Why is it better to eat whole foods instead of processed things? Why should I eat in season? Why is is better to buy whole chickens than just the breasts? Sure these are all basic aspects of cooking that our grandparents knew well – but which my generation never learned. There were valid reasons our parents gave up wholesome food for pre-packaged convenience, but how can we honestly be expected to know what’s better unless we are taught. And for better or worse my generation’s teacher is The Food Network. It of course has it’s issues. It’s corporate, has the products it must push, and seems to care little about ethical issues related to food. But perhaps all that is a symptom of a problem and not its cause.

So, I agree with Michael Pollan’s conclusion. To be healthy we (men and women) should be spending more time in the kitchen cooking from scratch using whole ingredients. But, from my limited perspective it’s not necessarily the Food Network turning us into couch potatoes, it is instead helping save us from what we’ve already become.

Read more

Olympic Injustice

Posted on

I’ve been following the news story of New Zealand Olympic hopeful Logan Campbell. If you haven’t heard, he’s the taekwondo athlete who said he was forced to open a brothel to cover his training expenses for the 2012 London Olympics. Prostitution is legal in New Zealand, but this has caused some to question if he should be barred from the sport. On one hand, I see how it would be difficult to uphold the taekwondo mandate that one always display high moral standards and respect others at all times if one is a pimp. But I also think this incident hints at some of the deeper injustices prevalent in the Olympic games.

When a follower of a discipline that stresses the respect of others finds the need to oppress other in order to pay to continue in that discipline there are issues with the system. The exorbitant costs of training athletes these days effectively leads to injustice of some sort. Either only the wealthy are able to use their talents and compete in what is far from being an equal opportunity world competition. Or athletes must sell their soul to their government to be trained, or they must oppress others to acquire the money they need. This isn’t about sports – or good sportsmanship – its about letting the privileged few succeed.

To make the economic disparity worse, just the occasion of hosting the Olympics itself results in the oppression of the poor. As cities create huge stadiums and hotels to accommodate the event, they generally raze lower-income housing developments in the process. The poor get displaced in the name of the event. In 1988, some 720,000 people were forcibly displaced in Seoul, South Korea, in preparation for the Summer Olympic Games. And some 1.5 million Chinese were forced from their homes during preparations for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. And even though Mayor Daley has said no one will be displaced if Chicago wins its 2016 Olympic bid, it is obvious that the property value increase will effectively force lower-income renters out of areas surrounding the Olympic village. But that still might be better than having Rio de Janeiro win the bid (one of the other 4 finalist cities). It is common knowledge that local businesses in Rio fund “death squads” to clean up their streets. They want the poor street kids to disappear and pay the squads to make it happen – especially before big events like the World Cup. A recent congressional study revealed that in Rio de Janeiro alone at least 180 different death squads operate. Fifteen of these groups target children exclusively and work “under the protection of the police and justice system,” according to Congresswoman Rita Camata. The investigation named 103 people–including lawyers, police and former police officers–involved in death squads that murder children.

In truth I love the Olympics. The Olympics are one of the few times I ever watch sports. I support the idea – letting the world come together to share their gifts and talents through the common language of sport. But not when it is just a guise for injustice. When it encourages the disparity between rich and poor. When it has a man selling women as chattel to fund his training. When it has cities hiding away their poor – displacing or worse, slaughtering them – in order to present a “clean” face to the world. The official goal of the Olympic movement is stated as – “to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.” But the question must be asked – are they really building a better world or just helping injustice flourish?

Read more

All the Lonely People

Posted on

“All the lonely people
Where do they all come from?
All the lonely people
Where do they all belong?”
– The Beatles, Eleanor Rigby

I didn’t really follow the media circus surrounding Michael Jackson’s death. I grew up as a conservative evangelical during the time when he was really popular, so I was never allowed to listen to his music and then never had any interest later on. I understand the idea of celebrity obsession, and there are a handful of celebrities whose passing I would mourn, but Michael Jackson wasn’t one of them. That said, I was struck by the news stories reporting on the fans who committed suicide upon hearing of his death. At last count some 12 fans have taken their life in response to his death. And that breaks my heart.

My initial response to hearing of these suicides was, “how could the church let that happen?” Now I fully admit the reasons for why people take their life are complicated, and that the church itself isn’t responsible for policing its members in that way. But at the same time, it saddens me that the inclusive community that should be the church failed to reach out to these people. That they could be so obsessed with a pretend relationship with a celebrity they had never met that they would end their life over it. Why isn’t the church offering a compelling, accessible, and understanding enough community that obsession over a distant idol is necessary for some people? And why aren’t we as the church doing our best to offer that community to those on the margins who may have slipped through the cracks and lost touch with reality?

Of course, I can give a dozen answers to my own questions. Raising the issues of what defines community itself, to people’s right to privacy, to the church’s own celebrity worship issues. There are all sorts of excuses and reasons why this has nothing to do with the church. And I even believe most of them. But at the same time I wish things could be different. I wish the church wasn’t an place where a few people show up with masks firmly in place. I wish people didn’t have reason to fear stepping into a church or of removing that mask and being themselves. I wish the church wasn’t more often than not just the facade of community instead of the real thing. Because if we were the real thing then maybe we could be serving all the lonely people in the world.

Read more