Win a Copy of Everyday Justice

Posted on

Cover of Everyday Justice by Julie ClawsonLoyal blog readers – you’ve heard me talk about it, commented on my ideas in their original blog rant format, and have seen me publish my book Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices. Now it’s your chance to win a free copy! (non-loyal readers, critics, and newbies are more than welcome to enter too).

If you are unfamiliar with the book, Everyday Justice explores how our daily actions (like what we eat or wear) connect us to people around the world. These daily actions can often though support systems of injustice that cheat and oppress people. Everyday Justice gives biblical support for why seeking justice for the oppressed is a faith issue and gives practical everyday suggestions for how we can choose to subvert systems of oppression and demonstrate love to others instead.

So if you are interested in discovering more about faith and justice, or are looking for practical everyday ways you can work for justice, Everyday Justice can be a valuable resource. And I’m giving away a copy here for my blog readers. All I ask is that you leave a comment below where you tell me either one practical thing you do to seek justice or post a question you have about justice. (I’ll interact with them in later posts). Or if you really can’t think of anything to say because you have no idea what justice is all about (and so really need to read the book) – just leave your name and say “I want the book.” You have until Sunday Nov. 1 at midnight (Central) to leave a comment and the winner (based on some super scientific selection process involving my 4 year old) will be announced Monday morning.

Good luck and I look forward to reading your comments!

(and if you are interested in increasing your chances of winning, the same offer is up at everydayjustice.net)

Read more

Tradition

Posted on

Tradition.

And yes, that must be mentally read to the Fiddler on the Roof tune.

Recent discussions here brought up the need to respect and submit to the authority of tradition in the church. Those of us in emerging discussion based churches were accused of just being individualists with no higher authority but ourselves. We were asked what church authority we submit to in the faith with the assumption that everyone should be submitting to someone. Such things like liturgy were championed because they are rooted in tradition and hence are often put forth as therefore the appropriate way to do church. This is a discussion popular in the church these days – even in emerging circles. We have Phyllis Tickle saying that the future of the church is in the hyphenateds – traditional denominations that are engaging the emerging conversation. Jim Belcher’s recent book, Deep Church, suggests an alternative to emerging Christianity is to have the church rooted in tradition, specifically the conservative reformed Presbyterian tradition. And Brian McLaren even recently affirmed what Richard Rohr said about the need for Emergents to be rooted in tradition –

It seems to me that the emerging church is emerging because people are finding the ability to have a grateful foot in both camps—one in the Tradition (the mother church) along with another foot inside of a support group that parallels, deepens, broadens, grounds, and personalizes the traditional message. But you don’t throw out the traditional message, or you have to keep rebuilding the infrastructure or creating a superstructure all over again.

I get all that. I see the beauty of tradition. I see the futility in think we are building something from scratch. I don’t think tradition should be scoffed at or rejected. I’m not anti-tradition.

It’s just that none of those are my traditions. I have never been rooted in liturgical practice. I didn’t grow up in denominations with catechisms and standard hymnals and theological tomes that cannot be questioned. I feel no allegiance to Luther, or Calvin, or Barth. I know I am influenced by them and owe my faith to the path they laid, but I’ve never been part of that tribe. I guess I could choose to adopt their tradition as my own just like I could decide that I wanted to become thoroughly culturally Chinese, but at the moment I feel no inclination to become Lutheran (or Chinese).

I know I am part of a great tradition. My faith does not exist in a vacuum – I respect and am grateful for the heritige of my faith. But I get uneasy with the repeated insistence that I must have at least one foot planted firmly in some tradition in order to have a holistic and healthy faith. I am told that I am rejecting tradition in pursuit of an individualistic faith if I do not. But honestly how can I reject something I never had? Those aren’t my tribes. I am just a low-church mutt who has found her place in the emerging conversation.

So given that – the question becomes “is tradition necessary for faith?” Or, can I be a Christian outside of a historic tradition or must I choose to align myself with an established tradition in order to be truly faithful? I know that’s the Catholic and Orthodox stance – but is it the official stance of the Lutherans, or Presbyterians, or Anglicans, or the emerging hyphenateds thereof? Must I choose one of those tribes? Or is there actually room for building new infrastructure and making a tribe out of us fringe immigrants who have no home?

This discussion is often framed as a dichotomy between tradition and rejection thereof – but not all of us fit neatly into those two categories. There needs to be room for us too – even if that requires changing the nature of this whole discussion.

Read more

Movie Review: Whip It

Posted on

This is what a girl power movie should be. I went to see Whip It because it looked fun and was a totally Austin film (there’s something fun about sitting in the Alamo Drafthouse watching a movie where the characters go to the Drafthouse…). I discovered though the most genuine and life-affirming coming of age story that I have seen in a long time. The story is that of small-town Texas girl, Bliss (Ellen Page), who escapes her mother’s beauty pageant dreams for her life by entering a roller derby league. Sounds like the standard cliched formulaic “girl discovers herself” plotline. But Whip It acknowledges the cliche and gives the predictable a twist.

This is a film about a girl being empowered to find herself. But it does so while admitting that life is messy. You have the standard plotline of restricted kid being held back by irrational parents, but it is also more than that. Bliss’ mother isn’t just a controlling mom shoving 1950’s stereotypes of pageant queens down her daughter’s thoughts. She loves her kids and wants them to have more opportunities than she ever had. Bliss’ doesn’t pursue roller derby to rebel, she does it because she has discovered a part of herself she never knew existed. Sure, there is conflict with her family, but the take-home message is that the individual always has to exist in community as a vital part of a family. Bliss realizes that she needs her family and her friends even as she comes into her own.

What she realizes she doesn’t need is the boy. Like any in girl grows up movie, Bliss meets the guy, falls in love, and gets hurt. And doesn’t get back together. She realizes that she doesn’t want to be “that girl” who allows herself to be hurt by guys and who has to change who she is for them. She regrets giving everything to her boyfriend, but comes through the pain more aware of who she is and knowing that she doesn’t need a boyfriend in order to be a whole person. This isn’t a “men – who needs them” message, but it’s a strong reminder that a woman’s worth and identity is not defined by the man she’s attached to.

I also loved that her experience in roller-derby wasn’t based on success but on being empowered by the experience. Unlike the typical guy sports film where the team ends up winning the state championship (and hence proving that hard work pays off blah, blah, blah…), when Bliss’s team comes in second place they don’t despair or choose to learn from their defeat or work harder next time – they break into a joyous team chant of “We’re number 2! We’re number2!” happy in their accomplishment of playing the game. They were a team and they proved to themselves as women that they could do this thing. That, not winning, was what mattered. I loved it.

Whip It was all about this healthy empowerment. It was the story of a girl discovering her own strength in community. She can be fierce and powerful and good, really good, at what she does. She doesn’t need to define herself by the warped standards of this world. She can be herself. This is the sort of story that we need to hear more often. Instead of the standard plotlines of “princess in need of rescue” or “someday my prince will come” found in most girl coming of age movies, Whip It provides a realistic role model I wouldn’t mind my daughter looking up to. Instead of telling women that we are defined by our bodies, our relationship with a man, our ability to compete and win, or our ability to be nice and compliant – we can hear that it’s okay to be ourselves in all of our glory and messiness.

But lest you think that Whip It is just a sappy after school special, remember that this is a movie about roller derby. It has action, fantastic skating scenes, and tough self-assured women all over the place. In short, it’s a fun movie that (thankfully) isn’t just drivel and fluff.

Read more

Jesus is not a Magic Wand

Posted on

So I know this post will be completely misunderstood by certain people. But I’ve been more and more disturbed recently by the tendency to fetishize Jesus by turning him into some sort of strange magical object. It’s nothing new – chanting the name of Jesus as if it were some sort of charm is quite ingrained in the Christian faith. What is disturbing to me are the people who call me unchristian if I dare question that practice.

What do I mean by Jesus as magic wand? It can be as simple as needing to surround ourselves with the idea of or name of Jesus as if it is a charm. It’s the Christian radio stations that have quotas for how often the name of Jesus must be repeated in songs each hour. It is the churches that insist that the only proper Sunday service is endless repetitions of an alter call where the name of Jesus is to believed in. I’ve heard sermons that dig deep into scripture or help develop spiritually whole people derided because they didn’t include the magic gospel formula. Or the responses to the recent Sparkhouse video about sparking new life in faith communities that criticized it because Jesus wasn’t mentioned enough. Or when a book comes out on say social justice issues and it gets negative reviews because it doesn’t include a gospel presentation as its main focus. I’m sorry that’s like criticizing Calculus textbook for not including a full history of mathematics. Such things are assumed as given. (And btw, I did include a (brief) summary of the gospel message in Everyday Justice – so, critics, back off.)

But as amusing as quotas and shallow baby food sermons may be, where I find this fetishization of Jesus to be most dangerous is in the realm of personal faith. It’s when people are told to “claim the name of Jesus” or to “believe in the healing power of Jesus” in order to deal with depression or marital problems or whatever. I’m all for mystery and the power of prayer and all that – but seriously what do those phrases even mean? By claiming the name of Jesus do I just expect him to work like a magical spell – I say his name with enough conviction and poof everythings better? If it doesn’t work then I just must not be doing it right (i.e. I don’t have enough faith or I’m living in sin). I get it that Jesus heals – I fully believe that. What I can’t buy is that it happens by magic. Healing takes work – it hurts and it requires our effort. I’m reminded of that cliched sermon illustration of the people caught in a flood waiting to be rescued. Each time a boat or helicopter comes to get them, they turn them away saying God will take care of them. Of course they die and in heaven challenge God as to why he didn’t care for them. He replies that he sent boats and a helicopter, why didn’t they take them. People are so convinced that Jesus is so hyper-spiritual and other-wordly that we’ve forgotten that he has to work through the real world. That we are his servants, caring for others and for ourselves. Sure, he empowers and guides us, but not so that we can be lazy and expect fairy-godmother-like intervention. I hurt for those who have been sold that lie. Those they reject therapy or treatments or services because they are waiting of Jesus to suddenly deliver a better life.

Jesus is not a fetish. Jesus is not a magic wand. Following him takes work. His name shouldn’t just be a charm or a mantra. We have to actually look at him and choose to do the dirty work of being like him. That means taking responsibility for our actions, for our hurt, and for the hurt in the world. We are following a guide not clicking our ruby-slippers together waiting to be whisked away. Jesus is real and powerful – we shouldn’t cheapen him by reducing him to trite nonsense. Getting our panties in a bunch because his name isn’t mentioned enough on the radio or a sermon or book doesn’t list the magic formula to get to heaven is a waste of time. Praying for Jesus to save your marriage is pointless unless you take steps to make it happen. Asking Jesus to comfort the poor is mockery unless we are out there being his hands and feet.

So I’m sick and tired of people saying I don’t care about Jesus because I don’t treat him like a household idol to be invoked and ignored at whim. I want to actually follow Jesus – which takes a lot more work and looks vastly different than flicking my magical Jesus wand.

Read more

Standardized Tests, Learning Styles, and Church

Posted on

At Christianity 21 I had a fascinating conversation with a couple of educators about how No Child Left Behind with its extreme emphasis on standardized testing has ruined our schools and teachers. They were discussing the stress such tests put on students and the lack of real learning that takes place in schools these days. I totally agree with all that, but the timing of the conversation sparked a few new connections for me. You see, we had just all done the small talk thing about what sorts of churches we attend and why. I understand the huge role personality and preference play in our choice of church to attend, but this conversation helped me pinpoint how much my learning style and hatred of standardized tests effects where I go to church.

Growing up, I never had a problem with standardized tests. They didn’t stress me out. I didn’t have to cover for my teachers helping me cheat on the test like many students these days. No, I was the kid who always got a perfect score on every standardized test. I’m not saying that to brag (because I hate the things), just to say that I learned how to take tests. I learned very early on how to give the test or the teacher exactly what they wanted to hear. So I could parrot back right answers. I could fill in the correct bubble with my number two pencil. And as I grew older I could ace pop quizzes on books I simply skimmed or get an A+ on a 10 page book report on a book I never read. I knew the system, I knew how succeed in a “learning” environment where all I had to do was regurgitate the exact crap the teacher wanted. And I thought it was all a joke.

I hated classes where this sort of so-called learning was the norm. To me it was just a game of information and not true intellectual engagement. I felt silly at the grade-school assemblies where I got trophies for my perfect scores because I knew it was meaningless. I felt ashamed at good grades that meant nothing. So when I first started to encounter settings where real learning took place, I dove headfirst into the opportunity. In high school that was the IB program. Where the AP classes were just all about learning the right way to take more vigorous tests, the IB classes were all discussion based. With no more than a dozen of us in each class we would explore the books we read, discuss poetry, pull out the themes in history, and design our own science experiments. Our grades were based on long essays where ideas and not form were the point. Or we were evaluated by sitting down for hour long discussions with our teacher. I came alive in that environment as I realized that real learning involved interaction and engagement. In college , expecting more of the same, I could barely stand the classes where it was all about just playing the system and bsing my way through. I wanted to learn, not just make it through.

So understanding that about myself helps me see why I attend the church that I do. I really can’t stand sermons or liturgy. I don’t want someone telling me what I should think without giving me the chance to engage. Nor do I like feeling like I have to engage in the right rituals of the system in order to do church right. I get how those things work for people with other preferences and learning styles, but they aren’t for me. I need to engage, be a part of a discussion, to push back when presented with ideas, to be able to connect what happens in church to life, and history, and music, and politics, and movies, and parenting…. I don’t want to feel like I have to fill in the right bubble or spit out some pretty sounding bs in order to be a part of church. I’ve been there, done that, and it felt false. I was good at it, just as I was good as standardized tests, but it didn’t spiritually form me. So I get uneasy with the recent popularity of discussions upholding the traditional forms of church and the sermon as the only right way to do church. Those are hollow to me and represent a detachment from meaningful faith. Others can have and celebrate those things, I just need something different.

Read more

Book Review – Sacred Friendships

Posted on

In this post-Christian age where those of us who follow Christ find ourselves increasingly moving towards the religionless faith that Bonhoeffer so accurately predicted would emerge, ideas that engage our spirituality continue to capture our attention.  We are looking for paths to follow that take us beyond dry and heady formulations of faith and allow us develop as spiritually whole persons.  So as one who participates in conversations regarding what a spiritually holistic faith might look like, I was excited to be sent Robert Kellemen’s and Susan Ellis’ new book on soul care and spiritual direction.  Sacred Friendships not only claimed to explore such topics, but to do so by giving voice to the myriad of silenced women’s voices in those fields throughout the centuries.

So it was with great eagerness that I started reading Sacred Friendships.  I desired to learn from the voices of the women who, according to the authors, participated in the “sustaining, healing, reconciling, [and] guiding” of their fellow believers.  I also greatly appreciated that the authors had chosen to listen to the voices of women from different time periods, many of which were outside of their own Evangelical camp.  In fact they make a good argument in the book for why Evangelicals can and should look to the full tradition of the Christian experience for inspiration and guidance.  I was grateful for that stance and dove into the book with high expectations.  Unfortunately those expectations were quickly disappointed as I became more and more uncomfortable with the picture of faith and women I encountered on the pages of the book.

Instead of holistic portrayals of women living a realistic faith, I discovered instead truncated hagiographies of women in traditional gender roles throughout history.  Although the authors stated that they had a great passion for empowering those who had been robbed of their voice, the authors took great care to let the reader know that in their desire to give voice to the silenced voices of women they were not supporting feminism.  And in fact they only gave voice to women in traditionally nurturing and caring roles like mothers, wives, and nuns.  While I fully agree that such women’s voices should be heard, I missed the voices of the teachers or preachers.   Even the stories of the women who perhaps skirted too close to that leadership line were quickly explained away as them simply living into their role as nurturers as best they could.  I failed to see how any of the included voices could ever have been considered silenced since they seemingly support historically approved roles for women.

Similarly many of the women profiled as saintly nurturers were in fact women from history that I would be quite hesitant to lift up as examples of positive faith at all.  Women like Augustine’s mother Monica who is generally known for her toxic manipulative faith were praised for speaking the truth to bring others to Christ.  There was no balance to the picture or admitting that sometimes guilt-tripping others into the faith might not be the healthiest way to spiritually direct a person.  But I soon discovered that the authors’ very definition of spiritual direction was simply confronting people with their sins and guiding them to conformity in Christ.  In no other context have I ever heard spiritual direction defined in such a way.  In my experience (and according to the definition provided at Spiritual Director’s International), spiritual direction involves conversations that help people discern where God is touching their lives directly or indirectly.  While making people feel guilty through confrontation or manipulation might make a woman a hero of the faith in the authors’ definition of spiritual direction, I could not affirm that as the most healthy or effective means of leading others into the faith in our post-Christian world.  Those of us within the postmodern sensibility see the hurt and the pain around us and we know we are responsible for causing that pain.  Being consumed with guilt and feeling bad about it doesn’t produce the fruit that is needed to change and heal the situation.  Healthy spiritual direction should help us get on board with what God is doing in the world, not paralyze us with navel-gazing introspective guilt.  While I think the authors might agree with me there, the endless stories of women presented in the book presented a far different story that encouraged readers down toxic spiritual paths.

I felt similar unease with the presentation of soul care in the book.  While the stories of women who helped others through their pain and suffering were inspiring, I found the manner of how to do so to be generally unhelpful.  The authors made clear their disdain for modern therapy and the use of drugs to treat depression (which was equated at one point with the sin of sloth).  The alternatives they presented though often promoted Gnostic dualisms like the rejection of the body and this world in favor of focusing on the blessings of heaven to come.  They similarly encouraged readers to simply dwell on the idea of Jesus for healing as if he were some sort of magic wand that can make everything all better.  I cringe at such advice because I have seen too many people hurt by the counsel to just repeat the mantra of Jesus’ name without ever doing the hard work it takes to heal their hearts and relationships with others.  While Jesus is of course the one who heals, healthy soul care should offer more substantial advice that to just “fix your eyes on Jesus.”

Our world has changed and the name of Jesus is no longer best proclaimed through systematic ideas and structures.  People are desperate for a holistic spirituality to guide their faith journey.  The idea of reaching back into the wealth of historic voices, especially the voices of women, to find wisdom to shape that journey is a beautiful thought.  Being sustained in our faith, healed of our pain, reconciled in our relationships with God and others, and guided into where God is already working are all concepts that should be affirmed in this postmodern world.  I just couldn’t get onboard with the often unbalanced and unhealthy ways of doing so suggested in Sacred Friendships.

Read more

Thoughts on Christianity 21

Posted on

So I’ve been trying to figure out what in the world to say about Christianity 21. It wasn’t a straightforward conference so it’s difficult to narrow down what exactly I want to say about it. It was intense, exhausting, uplifting, and encouraging all at once and I am still attempting to process it. (traveling immediately to Dallas the next day to go see U2 didn’t help with the exhaustion thing, although it totally carried on the spiritual high). So I’ll just throw out some of the things drifting through my mind about it.

In the lead-up to the conference I was part of numerous discussions regarding the need to give the stage so deliberately to a group of women. I get the desire to be at a point in the conversation where women’s voices don’t have to be highlighted but are just a normal part of things. Or to be at a place of if there is a Christian conference where the main speakers are women people don’t assume that it’s a women’s conference. I’d love that, but we aren’t there yet. I think C21 moved us forward in that direction, but women’s voices had to be highlighted this time in order for that to happen. mark spencerAnd I love that men who typically speak at these sorts of conferences came instead to serve at this one – doing all the behind the scenes stuff that we women often end up doing. Jay Bakker, Shane Claiborne, Spencer Burke, Mark Scandrette, and Gareth Higgins came to serve and help out. And as Doug Pagitt joked, to see the end of their careers as the privileged ones given the microphone at these sorts of events. Bono is right – women are the future and after this conference there can be no excuse for not inviting women to lead sessions at conferences because gifted intelligent women are out there. (and as a total aside the money quote from the weekend came from Shane Claiborne. I was talking to him about how he had “killed” my husband in a game of assassin as Wheaton College and he said “I love Assassin, I have to get my violent tendencies out somehow!” Awesome.)

all welcomeThe conference itself was intense. There was little down-time, little interaction or workshop time, just rapid-fire hearing from the presenters on what they see as important things to consider for faith in the 21st century. Granted, this wasn’t back to back lecture after lecture. There were some lectures of course, but there was also the telling of stories, short dramas, spoken-word poetry, musical pieces, times of prayer and reflection, conversations on stage, and a fast-paced group presentation pairing reflections with visual images. And as one of those presenters – let me just say that 21 minutes is a really really short time to try to do anything (especially when it is further broken apart into even shorter segments). Hearing a new idea every 21 (or 7 or 5) minutes is intense. With no time for interaction or question, jumping from one idea to another hardly gives one time to wrap ones mind around any given idea. So I am having a hard time summarizing what any one person talked about. I know Sybil MacBath did her thing about praying in color, Alise Barrymore did an amazing poetic speech about growing down. Seth Donovan pushed us to let people show up at church decompartmentalized from our identities and labels. Phyllis Tickle and Nadia Bolz-Weber chatted about the future of the church. Lauren Winner gave a killer list about what Christianity will be known for by the end of the 21st century. And Debbie Blue talked about roadkill and Jesus having an anus (it was beautiful, seriously). I remember the moments and that it was beautiful. And for all the controversy leading up to the event, this was one of the most Christ-centered, Bible and church affirming gathering I have been a part of in a long time.

nadia phyllisAs with most emerging conferences, one of the best parts was just being able to connect with people. I loved meeting friends from the Emerging Women blog and sitting down for drinks with someone I used to argue with all the time at The Ooze some seven years ago. I loved hearing people’s stories and what brought them to the conversation. I even got to spend the plane ride home continuing the conversation with new friends. I was blessed to learn from the Queermergent folks (and I totally apologize again for ditching so early, I was so falling asleep on the couch…). I enjoyed making new friends and getting to reconnect with old members of my tribe.

And I’m sure my rambling here makes sense only in my head, but I just need to get my thoughts out (as discombobulated as they are). But I do know that something significant happened this past weekend. And I was blessed to be a part of it.

Other people who are sharing about the experience –

Christina Whitehouse-Suggs on Drunk on the Wine of New Love

Danielle Shoyer gives a recap

Imago’s blog’s reflections

Tony Jones looks back at the event.

Seth Donovan talks about starting in a new place.

Pam Heatley compared C21 to a tropical vacation

Shula at Sensuous Wife blogs her reaction to the event.

Don Heatley has created an amazing highlight video from the event that really helps capture some of the themes that emerged there.

For more fantastic pictures from the event, visit Courtney Perry’s Christianity 21 photostream (the pictures here are hers, excepting the panorama which is Jake Bouma’s )

and if you want to witness for yourself the amazing live sketching Paul Soupiset did at the event, watch them here, here, here and here

Oh, and I’m super excited about the new publishing house, Sparkhouse, which launched recently. They created a video at C21 about sparking new life into faith communities, it’s pretty neat (I’m the space-y one in it).

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

Certainty as Unfaithfulness

Posted on

During Sunday school this morning at church, we discussed the testing of Jesus in the desert. At one point we divided into groups and were told to reflect on the tests and discuss what modern day equivalents might be. My group was given the third test as presented in Luke –

Luke 4: 9-12
The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. For it is written:
” ‘He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully;
they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’

As we discussed the passage one of the ideas that emerged was that our need for certainty in our faith is in fact a means of testing God. Jesus, of course, could have easily done what Satan suggested and proven to the people of Jerusalem that he was indeed the son of God with angels at his bidding. Having that evidence, providing that proof – might yes have gained him followers, but they wouldn’t have had faith. They would have had knowledge of who he was, but wouldn’t have had to choose to place their faith in who he claimed to be.

In the Bible we are often presented with those who offer such tests to God. Gideon lays out the fleece to God multiple times – he wants tangible proof that it isn’t foolish to follow God. Moses tries to gain the power of God’s name through a sly question. Thomas asks to see Jesus’ wounds. And God responds with what each of them needed. But at the same time, in scripture we hear the call to be responsible for our faith. To choose to follow out of love not out of secure certainty. To exercise our faith without holding God to one test or another.

This isn’t about not having a rational faith or whether or not Absolute Truth exists, it’s about believing in something bigger than ourselves without having to confine it to the smallness of our imaginations. It’s about telling God that we are okay not controlling her and that we will trust her even though we are consumed with questions and doubt. That, like Jesus, we will not settle for the easy path where faith can be reduced to a magic trick or scientific explanation or historical argument. Those things are fascinating and helpful in discovering more about our faith, but really miss the point as foundations for faith. To demand certainty is to test God. Perhaps the strongest faith is to embrace the messiness of doubt, to wrestle with the hard questions, and to choose to follow Jesus every day anyway.

I’ve developed enough in my faith that I no longer see doubt as a sin or defect. But I’m beginning to wonder if I should start seeing certainty in that light – as a roadblock to true faith and an unfaithful testing of God.

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