Father’s Day Thoughts

Posted on

At a recent wedding I attended, one of the groomsmen toasted the bride saying that she was going to make the perfect wife because she had already demonstrated her ability to be her fiancé’s full time maid and wait on him and his friends hand and foot.  My husband later told me that he sincerely hoped that no one would say something like that about our daughter at her wedding.  As a pastor he knows that any marriage based on such unbalanced submission is on shaky ground.  But more importantly, as a father, he would be heartbroken to see our daughter’s exuberance, inquisitive nature, and passionate love for life reduced to a toast like that.

Granted, our daughter is four, so even the vague thought of a wedding is years away, but now is the time when who she is as a person gets shaped.  When the values we want to impart as her parents compete with all sorts of other messages telling her what little girls should be like.  Now, we have no problem with her playing at princesses and fairies or having a wardrobe of all pink.  The real dangers come with those who want to limit who she is simply because she’s a girl.  Messages that tell her that girls cook and clean in the background while the boys explore and achieve.  That tell her that her worth stems from being physically appealing to boys.  Or that tell her that her voice is offensive or unwanted by God.  And as much as we’d like to believe that such messages are a quaint thing of the past, we continually see them popping up in the most unlikely of places.  From Cinderella’s maxim that to be beautiful is to be good (and to be ugly is to be evil), to Snow White sitting around waiting for her prince to come, to Sunday school lessons that focus exclusively on the male heroes of the Bible, she encounters values that will restrict her sense of self.

While I as a mother can encourage her to pursue her dreams and to not listen to those messages, in today’s world fathers must also play a major role in challenging those limitations.  Daughters need not be told by daddy that they can be whoever they want to be and then witness daddy go watch TV while mommy cooks dinner and does the dishes.  Or overhear daddy tell others that they play soccer well “for a girl.”  Fathers, now more than ever, need to be aware of how they help shape the way girls view themselves as people and in relation to men.

My daughter, like many young girls, is a total daddy’s girl, and constantly seeks his approval and mimics his actions.  This special relationship provides fathers with the chance to encourage their daughters to develop into whole people.  In our home, we do our best to show our daughter that both mommy and daddy work, and cook, and clean, and change diapers, and take time to relax.  My husband plays dress up fairies as well as lightsaber duals with my daughter.  He doesn’t want to push her into the preconceived box of “this is the way girls are”, but encourages her to be herself and use her active imagination.  We are, of course, making many mistakes along the way, but I am grateful my husband is being the type of father my daughter needs in order to grow up not into a set of stereotyped expectations, but into a healthy and whole version of herself.

Read more

Book Review – Enough

Posted on

 

I recently read Will Samson’s latest book Enough: Contentment in an Age of Excess. When I first started the book, I half-expected it to be a diatribe against modern culture, focusing on the sins of our excess. While the book does mention those excesses, what I found instead was a call to live into true church community. Will encourages us to say “enough” to the consumeristic tendencies that have overtaken our personal lives, our churches, or friendships, and our theology and return to a Christ-centered practice instead.

The book is divided into two main sections. The first is an accessible exploration of the ways we have let consumeristic mindsets control who we are. And the second is a practical section that explores the areas of our lives in which we can say “enough” and provides broad suggestions for alternative ways of living. Both sections are easy to read, full of stories and examples, and do a good job of explaining ideas and trends in culture. While I personally found myself wishing for more substance in parts of the book, I found it as a whole to be a great introduction to the idea of exploring how our lives reflect what we believe.

The main call in the book is for us to live eucharistic lives. Living eucharistically “is to find ourselves in a community of others seeking the same, seeking to follow God in the way of Jesus.”. But instead of living radically in that way, Will argues that we make do on low-cost, low-commitment substitutes. We exchange Christian community for the easy “personal decision for Christ.” We exchange the command of stewardship for a “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die get raptured” theology. We have failed to realize that what we do, where we live, and what we buy reflects our theology. Will reminds us though that our lives are a gospel account “written in public for all to see” and calls us to question what sort of story we are telling. He encourages us to abandon the story of how our inner longings push us to consume more and more, and adopt a story of finding a place in the presence of God and the community of believers.

I’d recommend Enough to those who are wondering if there is a different way to follow Jesus that just doesn’t rubberstamp the culture. This is a book for those who want to live redemptively but who have no idea where to begin. Will does a good job in providing a biblical guideline for how we can start to rethink our interactions with others and with the world and live in a way that makes the term “Christ-follower” mean something tangible.

Read more

Memorial Day Thoughts

Posted on

As we prepare to take a day off work and grill obscene amounts of meat in our backyards, it is interesting to reflect on the original intent of Memorial Day. It began as a day to honor fallen Union soldiers after the Civil War and was later expanded to honor all American casualties of war. From the inaugural description of the day –

The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form or ceremony is prescribed, but Posts and comrades will, in their own way, arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

We are organized, Comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, “of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers sailors and Marines, who united to suppress the late rebellion.” What can aid more to assure this result than by cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead? We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security, is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

As I read that description, I couldn’t help but reflect on the slight dissonance it recalled in me. For better or worse, I grew up in the South. While I was taught that slavery was wrong, there was an underlying sympathy for the South in the way that era of history was taught in schools. It wasn’t uncommon for the Civil War to be referred to as The War of Northern Aggression. History taught from the “other” perspective – in this case from the still slightly bitter losers – doesn’t always feel the same as that presented by the winners. So even now as I read the words telling me to honor those “who united to suppress the late rebellion” and died to preserve a “free and undivided republic,” I feel a twinge of dissonance. My cultural heritage, even if I don’t agree with it, was on the side of the rebellion. I am, in a small way, part of the “them” in this “us verses them” scenario. It just makes it a bit weird to remember and celebrate the sacrifices of the “other side.”

That dissonance was made even more real when I began to encounter other cultures that the United States has fought against. I remember being in some small country town in Germany and seeing a WW2 memorial. It took me a minute to realize that this was a memorial to the Nazis, the guys my country (my grandfather) killed. But they were sons and husbands sacrificed by this small town as well. Similar thing happened in grad school. I was out to lunch with a classmate from the Ukraine and we were sharing stories from our childhood about the Cold War. We each were fed propaganda about each other’s country and we had to do duck and cover drills in school. It was quite strange sitting in a Panara Bread in suburban Wheaton discussing how we would hide under our desks out of fear of each other. I saw the other side of the story and that those I had cast (or had been taught to cast) as “THEM” weren’t really that different than me. And while I admit to the evils of both WW2 and the Cold War, knowing the people on the other side makes it hard to celebrate those who died to protect me from them.

So as we are meant to keep the memory of the heroic dead on this day, I have to wonder if the “wealth and taste of the nation” might have some better use than preserving the memory of a fight to destroy those who are now our friends? Perhaps we could be building bridges, visiting country villages, and sharing meals with those we currently cast in the role of enemy. Perhaps instead of simple remembering those we lost in grievances of the past we can work to prevent the grievances of the present and future.

Or we could just relax, eat a hamburger, drink a beer and let the day pass unreflected upon (which in all truth are my plans for the day).  But maybe it’s a good thing that community building has replaced the honoring of the dead as the main purpose of the day.

Read more

A Rant on Church Banners

Posted on

So it’s been a crazy week. Mike is finishing up the semester and has something like a bazillion papers to write, so I haven’t had much time to sit down at the computer and write – much less mental energy or coherency to do so when I do have the time. So what you’re getting here is a rant – a stupid rant, I admit, but simply a rant about something that has been annoying me recently – megachurch banners. See I told you it was stupid. But seriously, the things are driving me nuts.

Before I go further, let me clarify. Church banners differ from the equally annoying church sign. While church signs have some pithy, inane, and often offensive saying meant to “witness” to the passing masses, church banners serve merely to advertise and get more butts through the door. And they generally only show up on megachurches because, let’s face it, they are the only ones with the budget to print up those things. The problem (beyond the whole churches advertising like this in general thing)  is that what makes sense to the church in-crowd, is confusing and meaningless to the outside world.

A few examples –

The church I grew up at here recently advertised some sort of concert they were having in their brand new stadium with a banner on the side of their building. They are situated on prime real estate overlooking the intersection of two major highways. But from even the closest spot on those highways all I could see was the date and the faces of what I assume are two CCM artists. No clue who they were, what sort of event it was, or how to find out more. Serious advertising FAIL.

Another of Austin’s megachurches hangs banners for their sermon series or ministry programs. A few months ago I saw that they were advertising for a series called “(in)justice.” I was intrigued so I went to their website (Google search) to find out more and hit a wall. There was nothing on the website except for a reprint of the banner itself. In fact I could find very little that actually told me anything about the church at all on the website – but it was a slick website. The same church also recently advertised their men’s ministry, so for a number of weeks they had a huge banner in front of their church that read “Men’s Fraternity.” I thought it was rather fitting for a conservative Texas church, but they were obviously clueless as to what message they were sending about their church.

Then there is the kinda sorta emerging megachurch in town. Not that they really are emerging, but they have the veneer. Well they put up weekly banners for their sermons. This week the sign reads “Close Your Bible. Open Your Mind.” At first I thought that it was actually an interesting topic, then I went to their website. It apparently is a cute objection to faith that the church is addressing in their “Why Austin Doesn’t Believe” series. I won’t be there this Sunday, but I get the feeling that the sermon will be on why you shouldn’t close your Bible and believe it anyway and not on opening your mind to different perspectives.

Okay, some might say that these banners are serving their purpose since I am noticing them. But honestly, how effective are banners at drawing outsiders in? If they don’t explain much, or make any sense if you don’t go to the church, why waste resources on them? I mean, I get some entertainment getting annoyed by them each time I drive by, but really, what’s the point?

Read more

Book Review: The Next Evangelicalism

Posted on

I am a little nervous writing a review of this book. On one hand there is a lot I like about Soong-Chan Rah’s The Next Evangelicalism, but the book also raised some serious questions for me. But I’m white, and this is a book about identifying and moving beyond the white Western captivity of the church. Plus in the Introduction, the author dismisses any disagreement by saying his words flow simply from a love for Jesus and a desire to see the church healed. So I have a sad feeling that I could get into a lot of trouble if I speak my mind about this book. But I want to anyway – because even though there are aspects of the book that I have serious issues with, I think its overall message is absolutely necessary for the church to hear. I think some of those issues might get in the way of that message being heard by a wider audience, so I think they need to be addressed upfront and dealt with – even if I take some heat for doing so.

The basic premise of the book is that the future of the church is in its global non-white manifestations, but that the church is currently being held back by its captivity to white Western systems of thought. While some are lamenting the decline of Christianity in America, they fail to realize that it is only in white America that it is in decline. Minority populations are on the rise. By 2050 it is predicted that the majority of U.S. residents will be non-white, and most of them are Christians with strong churches and faith traditions. If the church is to survive, those who hold power must recognize and give up the ways white Western culture has influenced the church and instead look to other cultural expressions of faith for leadership, church structure, and healing for the church.

I found the first part of the book to be a fair exploration of how white Western culture has co-opted Christianity and the harm that it has caused. It is true that the church often reflects more of Western individualism than the values of community found in scripture. The author blames this lack of focus on community for the church’s failure to respond to social problems, and the overemphasis on personal sin and guilt for the lack of corporate shame for similarly sinful actions. This focus on individual sin is what has allowed corporate sins like racism to go unchecked in the church for so long – there is no communal structure for dealing with communal sin. Similarly the author writes on how the American dream has become confused with biblical standards. This has led to consumer churches and materialism as a measure of success in the church. The church growth movement and megachurches are given as the prime example of how far churches have sold themselves out to this white Western worldview.

The author argues that having the church held captive to this worldview not only hurts the church by promoting non-biblical values, but it promotes a cultural imperialism masquerading as biblical theology. When Western forms of the faith are presented as the only valid form of faith, then the gospel fails to be contextualized into ways other cultures can truly understand it. They are forced instead to adopt white Western culture in order to be Christian. People also fail to realize the diversity of the church – focus on the decline of white Christianity while ignoring the growth of Christianity worldwide. We miss out on the multitude of expressions of church and theology that have much to offer and teach all people of faith. The author says that we cannot truly learn from those just like us.

To break this captivity and heal the church from the harm caused by Western dominance the author insists that people must submit to learning from those different than them. For too long white people have had the “privilege” to ignore the others, and to have our theology and experience lifted up as primary. This privilege must be confronted and whites lay down all of our power for the status quo to ever change. If we do not give up that power and learn from other cultures then we are not missionaries for Christ, but simply cultural colonialists. To that end the author provides example of the ways ethnic churches function as ideals to emulate. He stresses living in community – giving aid to each other, celebrating with each other, and sharing true sorrows together. He also suggests that second-generation English-speaking immigrants like himself are the best choice to led the church of tomorrow. People like him straddle two worlds and have had the liminal journeying experience that can help transition the church away from its captivity to a more holistic perspective. The book concludes with the three-fold action plan of the church needing to confess its sin of white Western captivity and imperialism, submit itself to the spiritual authority of non-whites, and then finally live into the diverse community the Bible speaks of.

So for the most part I agree with the author. The church has been held captive and has caused serious harm because of that. All Christians should recognize that and those who have propagated and benefited from it repent. The diversity of the church should be recognized and white people should make the effort to learn from and to submit to people of other races. The racism in the church cannot be healed unless power is truly shared and whites stop trying to “reach-out” or “serve” the Other, but instead submit to the Other. I agree with all that and think that message is why this book is important for all Christians to read.

But I have my issues as well. The most basic being that I disagree with the author’s assumption that all cultures deserve respect and a voice – expect white Western culture. He spends a long time discussing why white Western culture is bad, but gives very little reason why other cultures should be accepted excepting the fact that they are not white or Western. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he doesn’t think that white Western culture is the only culture that has let cultural setting influence its worldview and interpretation of the bible. But at times I wasn’t so sure since white Western culture was always presented as captive and evil, and all other cultures as free and good. I think this book is going to be ignored or condemned simply for that assumption of the author’s. No matter how evil or misguided a culture has been, to write them off as utterly unworthy of respect (when they are your target audience) is not going to do much for advancing your cause. I understand the need to be harsh and to make readers uncomfortable, but to dismiss an entire race isn’t fair.

Similarly I really wish more time had been given to exploring the positive ways other cultures contribute to Christian identity. The main example that he gave, that of a Korean immigrant church, did little to capture my imagination as a reader. I am sold on his idea that we need multiethnic churches and that we need to learn from all voices. But then his example was of a single-language, single-culture church that separates itself from the outside world to keep its cultural identity strong. The community he describes in that church is wonderful – but I’ve seen the same thing in emerging or even rural Southern (generally racist) churches. If the church he was describing was all white and existed to keep that identity strong he would have (rightly) labeled it racist and imperialist. And while I understand the need for minority voices to preserve identity amidst a majority culture, his example didn’t persuade me of his message. At the end of the day I wanted a little more than “because they are not white” as reason why listening to and learning from ethnic Christian voices is a good thing. Like I said, I agree with the author’s conclusions, but he might face trouble with other readers with such weak examples.

Then there was my issue with his take on the emerging church. It was really bad timing that I read this book during my EVDC09 trip where I got to witness the diversity and community of the emerging church. While the author generally was kind and thoughtful in his critique of the white Western church, when it came to his take on emerging Christianity, his tone changed dramatically. He became angry and accusatory, calling our very existence offensive. He claimed our use of the term “emerging’ is offensive since ethnic churches are the only ones truly emerging these days. He was appalled by the number of emerging books published since there are by far more Korean churches out there than emerging churches and there are far fewer books on Korean Christianity. He was offended that a book he contributed to wasn’t featured on the Emergent Village website. And after stating over and over again that the failing of the Western church is its individuality, he criticizes the emerging church because it is communal and local which leads to all its members looking alike. He claims that all of us disgruntled evangelicals when we left our churches should not have continued the white Western captivity of the church by starting the emerging church, but should simply have joined ethnic churches instead. That statement really bothered me because it turned his argument into less of a call for diversity and embracing many voices, and more of a hatred of all things white. I am just as uncomfortable in the captive church world he describes as he is, but he can’t get past the color of my skin to allow that my disagreements with churches and my affinity to the emerging church might be about ideology more than race. But what really disturbed me was the author’s use of a blog post a friend of mine wrote from which he concludes that leaders in the emerging church don’t care enough to discuss racial issues. If he had bothered to get the full story behind that post and explore the context it was written in and responded to, he would have perhaps not so erroneously misrepresented the emerging church. But he didn’t bother to do that research and now has made very false claims about me and my friends (not by name, but I recall the post in question very well). Perhaps the angry anti-emerging undertone to the book is based on the “outsider” feeling I wrote about recently. Perhaps those of us emerging insiders aren’t doing all that we can to give up power and learn from others. But we are trying, and in truth agree with much of what is in this book. I just wish the author wasn’t so eager to condemn us (his potential supporters and allies) and write us off simply because some of us are white.

Okay so this turned out to be an insanely long review. At least from that, you can probably tell that this book is engaging and contains a lot to chew on. Even with my issues with it, I highly recommend others read it. It deals with issues that the church has to address. It is harsh and it is uncomfortable (sometimes extremely and needlessly so in my opinion), but that discomfort can lead to change. The church needs change – it must change if it truly wants to represent the Kingdom. The Next Evangelicalism is a good wake-up call for how we need change. I just hope that the message can be heard within this sometimes angry and extreme vessel.

Read more

Christians, Empire, and the Economy

Posted on

Mike recently brought to my attention a letter written by Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan written around 111 AD concerning persecution of Christians. I found it fascinating for the insight it gave into what Christian communities were like back in the early days of the church. Pliny obviously was trying to figure out what to do with this strange bunch of heretics and was seeking advice from the Emperor as to how he should proceed in the persecutions. I found it interesting, from an egalitarian perspective, that when he wanted to find out more about these Christians Pliny mentions capturing and torturing two slave girls who were deaconesses in the church. But beyond that what I found most fascinating were the impact Christians were having on the local economy.

Pliny mentions that once he ramped up the persecution of Christians and insisted on their following Roman customs (like venerating the emperor), certain changes occurred in the culture. He mentions that the Roman temples, once deserted, were once again being filled, and religious rites practiced. And that the market for sacrificial animals, which had all but dried up, was once again flourishing. He proudly asserts that these Christians had been reformed into dutiful citizens of the Empire.

It intrigues me that Christians simply being who they are could so impact an economic system to the point that suppliers for animals to sacrifice to idols almost died out. It took the Empire persecuting and torturing Christians in order to restore that way of life and for the economic system to revert to the way things had been. I can’t help but notice how the situation is reversed for Christians today. Instead of subverting the unjust economic systems of empire, we have married it to our faith. For many it is our Christian duty to uphold the economic system of our government. In fact those who question the system, or even question small parts of that system, are labeled as unpatriotic and (therefore) unchristian. It is those who stand with the poor and the oppressed, who choose not to give their money to false gods and unjust entities, that face ridicule for their faith these days.

I wonder what it would take for Christians these days to have such a significant economic impact on a part of our culture that it starts freaking the government out. What if we all choose not to buy products made by slave labor? What if we choose not to invest in companies that provide brothel visits with trafficked children as incentives for businessmen? What if we only bought clothing or food for which workers were paid a living wage? Would we maybe then be known for being something other than the lapdogs of Empire? I don’t want to incur persecution, but if you are messing with the powers that be (especially the economic powers that be) then persecution is bound to follow. These Christians lived out their beliefs and seemingly had profound impact until the Romans started pressuring them to abandon their values. Are we even ready to admit that our faith has something to say to economic systems much less live out Christian values in that realm?

Read more

The Burden of Inclusion Should Rest Upon ‘Insiders’

Posted on

As I process the conversations I had recently at EVDC09 (a gathering of emerging church participants to discuss the future of Emergent Village), I realized that one of the topics that keeps surfacing in relation to Emergent Village is that of the inclusivity of all voices. Critiques have been made (with good reason) regarding how EV often seems like a club for insiders. Heck, I’ve even said that before — wishing that more voices could be heard as part of this conversation. And as I’ve mentioned before, this critique is not so often based on reality as it is on the perception of reality. So even if all voices/people have always been welcomed, that welcome or presence hasn’t been seen by wider audiences and so is perceived not to exist.

Even amidst the group gathered this past weekend we had to confront the feeling of being an outsider. On one hand we had to admit that from a certain perspective the 23 of us gathered in a room to discuss the future of Emergent Village screamed “insider.” Just the act of gathering like that might imply to some that we were on the inside of some secret society that held all the power. But in fact as we confessed to each other that first evening, we all felt like outsiders, wondering why we were there.

This feeling is not something I am unfamiliar with at all. For a long while my interactions with Emergent came through reading the books and occasionally going to hear some big-name author speak. Sure I participated in online discussions and a local cohort, but I didn’t feel like I had a voice within Emergent as a whole. My experience attending the 2005 Emergent Convention in Nashville only confirmed that outsider status. For reference, I attended with my 3-month-old daughter and was under the impression that I would never again be a fully-functioning human being (much less get a full night of sleep). I recall attending the Emerging Women lunch and feeling very overwhelmed and worthless as all the other women at my table talked about their seminary experience and recent conversations on their blogs. So while I resonated and came alive with everything I heard there, I felt like I could never truly belong.

Same thing at the 2006 Emergent Glorietta Gathering. I felt like I was crashing a party of really good friends. But after that event, as I started connecting online with the people I had met at the Gathering, relationships were built. I slowly realized that being part of the Emergent conversation simply meant making the effort to be a part of it. So for better or worse, I jumped in — hosting blogs and events to help facilitate the conversation. Did that turn me into an insider? Maybe. To me it just felt like joining the conversation.

But at the same time I completely understand the barriers that are still perceived to exist. And those barriers were talked about this weekend. No matter how often we in Emergent say we are open source or about shared power, if people can’t easily perceive and access that then our words have no value. So there need to be deliberate steps taken to listen to the voices of the many, to link to the diversity of voices within the conversation, and to make invitations to join the conversation (both publicly and privately) up front and apparent. Unless leadership is transparent and invitations for involvement continually offered, the perception of a closed group of insiders will persist. Granted, there will always be some that will be angry about being on the outside unless they (or at least their special-interest group) is handed power, and that can’t be helped. But the truth is being part of Emergent often means being willing to put in the work of stepping up, using their voice, and working for the good of the whole. It’s about choosing to serve and share power — always extending invitations to the Other.

So of course we have a long way to go to reach a point of true openness; there is no denying that. And while we can say that all are welcome if they will just step up to the conversation, I think the burden of inclusion should be on us who are already comfortable as part of the conversation. We need to be the ones extending invitations, welcoming others in, and making it easy for them to be a part of the conversation.

So while we may not see ourselves as insiders, we are at the very least in a place where we can at least blur the perceived line between insiders and outsiders. Because in the end those desiring to be a part of this conversation are all in the same place. We all struggle, we all question, and we all desire a community to do all that together with. I think Amy Moffitt described it best in her reflection this past weekend:

The truth, of course, is that there really isn’t an inside. There are folks who know a little more than other folks, but it became apparent — to me at least — that every single person there is an exile in some sense. We came together, believing in the real worth of Emergent Village, because it has served as a meeting place for us

Read more

Everyday Justice

Posted on

Cover of Everyday Justice by Julie ClawsonSo I’m excited to reveal the cover of my upcoming book Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices. What do you think?

The book is being published by IVP and will be released in October. I saw it listed in the newest IVP trade catalog recently which was really cool and made the whole thing seem more real. As in – all the writing I tried to squeeze in between diaper changes and playing Candyland is actually becoming something.

The book, as the title implies, is about justice – about the ways each of us can live into the way of life Jesus calls us to live. I think too often we get overwhelmed by justice issues and decide that they are just for the Mother Teresas or the Shane Claibornes of the world to care about. So this book is about the ways each of us in our simple everyday lives can act justly. In it I explore the ways that we can love our neighbors through what we eat, wear, drive, and consume. But the book isn’t just a list of do’s and don’ts, but an exploration of what it means to love our neighbor. It explores what it means not only to pursue justice with our day to day actions, but also how we can avoid supporting systems of injustice with those actions as well.

I’m excited about it – click here if you want to read what others are saying. I just thought I’d share some of the excitement at moving forward in this process with you all here!

Read more

The Real Me?

Posted on

’ve been having a bit of an identity crisis recently. It’s kinda silly really. Since I spend so much time of Facebook and the like while I am nursing Aidan, I’ve ended up doing a ton of those quiz things. Now, while knowing what color or 1980’s movie I am is deeply important in the grand scheme of things, there are a few of the quizzes there that are actually somewhat insightful. They ask good questions and get people to think about themselves. But my problem that I have noticed as I’ve taken them recently is that I don’t know which “me” to answer them as. I find myself debating if I should answer as the person I act like in “real life” or as who I am online.

Now before I get jumped on for confusing the virtual world with reality or something, I have to admit that I feel like the person I am online is more “me” than what I act like around actual physical people. Yes, I’m weird and probably have serious issues or something, but that’s the way it is.  I can think of a number of reasons for why it is the case. In my day to day interactions with people, I don’t often (ever?) have the chance to be myself. I generally am trying to hide who I really am, or at least what I think about things, from family and acquaintances because I hate conflict. I’d rather have a semblance of a relationship than not pretend to be who they want me to be. Mike knows the difference, and gets to listen to my rants about what I wish I would have said at say, MOPS, but I let the facade continue.

Or I am not me because, I am simply trying to divide my attention between having a conversation with people and paying attention to my two very demanding kids. Since I am with the kids some 95% of the time, I feel like the “me” I most often portray to the world is the brainless, tired, too-stressed-to-form-complete-sentences mom. I think the other students at Mike’s seminary must think I am either completely stupid or utterly anti-social since I generally have to ignore them all to chase after the kids when I’m down there. It’s kinda hard to be a self-assured empowered women when you are covered in spit-up and have the “mommy, mommy, mommy” broken record playing at all times. I haven’t had time to make any friends here in Austin who I can just be myself with, so all of my public interactions are me being these strange parodies of myself and hating it.

So it is in the online world that I feel like I can be myself. On one hand, it’s nice to have that outlet.  I think I’d go insane otherwise.  But I have to ask myself if I don’t have the opportunity to be myself in “real life” is that really me? Hence my strange Facebook quiz dilemma. It’s who I think I am, it’s who I want to be, but it’s not what I act on a daily basis.

So what do you think (besides that I’m a messed up freak…)? Can your online persona be the “real you”? Or is that not real if it doesn’t surface in actual human interactions? Is this just me, or do others of you experience the same issue?

Read more

Post-Easter Thoughts

Posted on

I enjoyed the Easter service at Journey on Sunday – and I’ve been trying to write about it since then, but the kids had other plans for me. But the service was a good reminder that the point of the Resurrection is not that that it happened, but that we are called to respond to it. For most of my life Easter has been treated as simply an apologetics opportunity. Apparently if we know that it is possible to sweat blood, or the exact effect of crucifixion techniques on a body, or that the gospels were written too close to the event to be legends then we would have no choice but to believe it all happened. I think it’s obvious by now that simply knowing supposed facts or even believing something happened does little to change our lives. But nevertheless, the events of Easter continue to be reduced to poor historical forensics. Not that that stuff isn’t interesting or has a place, just that it really isn’t what Easter is about.

The argument that really gets me (which was brought up at church during the discussion) is the whole “the Easter story is just too fantastic and imperfectly told to be made up. The disciples couldn’t have made up this story if they had tried.” I used to buy that argument, but I’ve come to realize it’s utter absurdity. It’s premise rests on two assumptions. One that the gospel story is so unique it has to be true, and two, that imperfections in the writing techniques lend credibility to the story because no good author would allow such discrepancies. My response to proponents of the first premise is – have any of you guys ever read literature or studied history?! Of course authors come up with far more fantastical stories on a daily basis – even in ancient times. Ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh of Greek mythology? How about the Odyssey? In fact many of those old mythological stories about dying gods coming to life are pretty dang similar to the Easter story. How about looking into why we call the day Easter to begin with. Even if the story is true, it is not unique.

And as for the second premise, it assumes that the point of the gospels is to convince people to believe. I guess if we have made Easter all about believing in certain facts, it is understandable that some would assume that the gospel writers had that same purpose in mind. But I have a hard time believing that these stories were written down as evidence to convince us to believe. Jesus didn’t instruct the disciples to spread his story so that everyone would know it was true, he instructed them to train others in the disciplines of the Kingdom. The books we have are tools for helping us understand how to follow Christ. Not just to know what he did and believe it happened, but to live it out. We are to respond to the Resurrection in the ways Jesus called us to live. We can argue all we want about it happening or not, but in the end that does nothing to serve Christ. Choosing to respond and actually live in the way of Christ is where the true significance lies.

Read more