Lent – Being Aware

Posted on

So we are one week into Lent. I posted on Ash Wednesday about my ambivalence regarding how to observe the season this year. At this point in my life, I feel the need to build up faith instead of eliminate random habits in the name of discipline. But I really didn’t know how to do that. I finally decided to spend the season simply being more aware.

Now of course being aware could just be a euphemism for doing nothing – and it just well might be. It’s easy sometimes to open our eyes to the world around us and then fail to act upon what we see. That’s me most of the time these days. But when I’m at the point that my main goal some days is just to make it to the end of the day without having gone utterly insane from being trapped inside the house with screaming children – to open my eyes and get past my self-absorption seems like a good place to start.

So being aware…

Here’s where I show how really pathetic I am. I’ve been reading through the Lenten Guide provided by Mustard Seed Associates. It is a fantastic resource, full of faith and community building suggestions for the season. I was drawn to the meditation they had on Psalm 51:10 “Create in me a clean heart O God and renew a right spirit within me.” It resonated with my desire to be more aware of my world and get over myself. And it’s a way more spiritual of a prayer than “God help me not be a selfish bitch.”  But part of the Lenten Guide is a suggestion to take the Mutunga $2 Challenge. The idea is for a family to commit for a week to eating on $2 per person per day. Since most of the world only makes $2 a day, this is an exercise to help foster awareness as to how most of the world lives. If anything, it serves to highlight how much we truly do have. I think it’s a great idea, but (and here’s the pathetic part) I’m not doing it. But in a strange way that too has helped me be more aware.

When I first heard about the challenge, I mentally started adding up the cost of what it takes to feed Aidan each day. At 8 months his diet is rather fixed and I quickly realized that there is no way that I could feed him on $2 a day. That shocked me since I already try to be economical with his food. His diet consists of breast milk, formula, oatmeal, and pureed fruits and veggies. So the breast milk is free and if I was a bit more diligent about using the (expensive) breast pump I have then perhaps I wouldn’t need the formula. But the reality is that he gets formula in his oatmeal and generally one bottle a day. I’m already over a dollar there. Granted I use organic formula – the stuff that doesn’t contain hormones, steroids, and melamine. Perhaps I could save a few cents by feeding him those poisons, but really? On top of that I make all of his pureed food. I save a ton of money (and disposable jars) doing that, but even 8-10 oz a day adds up fast (between $1-2 a day). But if I were buying the jar food, that same amount of food would cost between $2-5 a day.

But as I thought through that I was reminded that it is generally the poorer mothers who are forced to buy the more expensive foods. For a lot of women because of job circumstances using expensive formula is the only option. And finding time to make babyfood is hard – it’s a lot easier for busy moms to just buy jars off the shelf. Even ignoring what is healthiest for the baby or what is most environmentally friendly – the bottom line is that it costs more to get by when you’re stressed out trying to make ends meet. So I have to ask – what causes this? Is it culture? All the other moms use formula, so it seems like the only option. Marketing? All those free formula samples supplied to hospitals and doctors making their mark. Lack of education? Do women not know the cost difference and health benefits? Or simply systemic injustices that prevent poor mothers from fully focusing on their family. This is not just about the poor in third world countries struggling on $2 a day – but its about minimum wage single moms here that are caught in a system that holds them back. When those that can least afford it have to spend the most on food there are cultural issues that seriously need addressed.

What am I doing about that? I don’t know. Yet. But I know it helps to be aware.

Read more

Admitting Historical Mistakes

Posted on

In conversations about how times have changed and the progress the world has made one inevitably hears the flat earth scenario. You know, the whole “once upon a time people were so deluded by faith that they actually believed the world was flat.” Whether that is a cultural myth or not doesn’t matter. What’s at stake here is the sociological ability to admit mistakes on the historical level.

It’s something that amuses me. For as hard some choose to believe that certain formulations of history are the gospel truth so to speak (i.e. that America was founded as a Christian nation, that the 1950’s were a more moral time…), alternative interpretations of the facts still exist. But it takes a lot for a culture to let go of one collective interpretation in favor of another. Granted, major shifts, like deciding slavery is wrong or that women are people too, are rare. But even the small stuff fascinates me.

I was reminded of these shifts a couple of times recently. The first was after hearing about a recent report on NPR. The report basically was about how science sometimes gets it wrong. It discussed how when around 1900 doctors began autopsies on SIDS victims (babies), they identified the thymus glands as being enlarged. Thinking a cure for SIDS simply involved shrinking the gland, tens of thousands of babies were given radiation treatments to shrink their thymus. Unfortunately this was a misdiagnosis based on faulty anatomy research. Early anatomical research was done on cadavers collected from poor houses. The thymus gland is interesting in that it shrinks when a person is under high levels of stress – such as experiencing abject poverty. So, when the anatomy books were first written they identified the thymus as much smaller than a healthy one should be. The babies in fact had healthy thymus glands. The sad outcome of the mistake is that some 30,000 of these babies later died from radiation induced throat cancer. A costly mistake, but at one point the facts and the research had seemed so sure…

Similarly I recently discovered that absinthe is now legal in the United States. This surprised me – I’ve seen Moulin Rouge and the paintings of Toulouse-Lautrec. I’ve heard the stories that this liquor is more hallucinogenic drug than alcohol – perhaps laced with opium or something equally addictive and life destroying. Why else would it be banned in almost every country in the world? But as those bans have been overturned worldwide recently, it’s become known that absinthe’s bad reputation was based solely on cultural myth. Early tests linked the herbs in absinthe to the same chemicals as in LSD, but those were proven false. In fact there is no evidence that Absinthe is in truth anything more than a really strong drink. Sure it is addictive – back in the 19th century this herbal distilled liquor had a high alcohol content but mixed with sugar and tasting of licorice was extremely drinkable. It was the fruity girly drink of its day – making it a bit too easy to have a few too many. Sure dripping sugar slowly into it produced a chemical reaction that turned the liquid green (releasing the green fairy), but it was basically alcohol pure and simple. And for nearly a century the world believed that something this easy to drink had to contain sinister drugs and kept up the bans. It took some hard lobbying with the truth for the U.S. government to finally admit in 2007 that they were wrong and allow the green fairy across our borders.

There’s nothing extremely significant or deeply meaningful about either of these stories beyond the cultural ability to shift perspective and admit mistakes. They serve as a reminder to me to hold truth lightly. I can have faith and I can believe, but I need to take care not to cling so tightly with certainty to an idea that I am unable to admit I am wrong when need be. Our interpretations of the facts, the cultural myths we hold dear, the lenses though which we view the world all shift over time and if we truly do care about truth, we will be ready and willing when those shifts need to happen in our lives.

Read more

Lent

Posted on

So Lent starts today and honestly I have no idea what I’m doing. I’ve been struggling with the whole thing. I didn’t grow up in churches that observed Lent. It was only in college that I was even exposed to the whole concept. I would hear my friends discussing what they wanted to give up for the season – chocolate, TV, soft drinks – as well as hear them complain about how Easter couldn’t arrive soon enough. But in truth it all seemed strange. I didn’t really understand Lent, but the whole give up something you like was just an odd observance.

I totally understand the idea of being disciplined and of using one’s extra time or craving to draw closer to God. That’s in theory at least how its supposed to work. But it all seemed sort of hollow to me. What lasting spiritual effect is there of not eating chocolate, complaining about it, putting others out who happen to serve it, and then resuming consumption come Easter? Or what’s the point of giving up TV when you know that you’ll just catch up on those episodes of Lost on TiVo or DVD after Easter?

What confuses me even more is the tendency to give up relational things for Lent. I’ve had friends give up using a cell phone – which just made it really annoying for us (or their employer) to reach them. Others give up going out with friends and others give up the whole Facebook, Twitter, blog thing. While I understand how such things can be addictions, but it just seems counter-intuitive to the ideals of Lent to separate ourselves from community.

So this is where I’m sure I offend, but its something I’ve been struggling with. I just don’t see the purpose of Lent to be this perfunctory elimination of some random thing we like whose loss we endure simply until Easter. It’s just too individualistic – it’s all about me, my sacrifice, and (hopefully) my relationship with God. And while I admit to and am grateful for the personal message of the gospel, this perspective seems to forget that part of the message of the gospel (and of Lent) is that of righting relationships. The gospel is not just about us – it’s not just about getting our own butts into heaven or making sure we feel close to God. It’s also about loving our neighbors, seeking justice for the oppressed, and being part of the body of Christ.

So that’s why I am uncomfortable with reducing Lent to chocolate or a few episodes of American Idol. During Lent we are called to right our relationships with God and with others. So I’m more inclined to instead of giving up Facebook use it more deliberately – trying to be more aware of the simple everyday parts of my friends lives. I don’t want to give up food simply for the sake of giving it up – I want to instead show love to others by eating food that was ethically sourced. I want to discipline my life to be more aware, more involved, and more loving. I want the season of Lent to transform me in ways that extend beyond Easter.

That said, I’m at a loss how to proceed this season. I want to love others and build community, but right now I’m still struggling to figure out how. It would be easy to simply eliminate something from my life, but I’m beginning to understand that perhaps it is better to build. But of course, that’s a lot messier. So I’m still trying to figure it out.

Read more

Standing Up To Religious Bullies

Posted on

Check out my new post at God’s Politics – India’s Women Stand Up To Religious Bullies

 

At the end of January in Mangalore, India, a group of right-wing extremists, the Sri Rama Sena, entered a bar and assaulted the women there.   This pro-Hindu group is known for its moral policing and told the authorities that they attacked the women “because of the attitude of the young women.” They accused the women of “involving themselves in immoral activities, including consuming alcohol, dressing indecently, and mixing with youths of other faith.”  These men used their religion and personal conception of Indian culture as excuses to violently lash out against those whose lifestyles they disagreed with.  The attack, which involved the men beating, chasing, and kicking the women who fell down, was caught on tape and aired on Indian television to a shocked public.

The response from women was swift.  Since the Sena also threatened to attack any couple they found celebrating on Valentine’s Day, a campaign was created asking women to stand up against extremism and bullying on February 14.  Supporters were asked to send the Sena pink chaddis (Indian slang for underwear) and to deliberately go to pubs on Valentine’s Day.  A group called the “Consortium of Pub-going, Loose and Forward Women” formed on Facebook and in about a week’s time grew to over 50,000 members (one of the fastest growing groups ever).   The Sena has yet to comment on the protest and consortium members are moving forward in a new campaign to help assert the diversity of Indian culture.

I applaud these women for taking a stand against those who would use violence to control them, but it was a sobering reminder of the ways religion is used to bully women.  Perhaps women aren’t always being brutally attacked in the streets, but they still have violence perpetrated against them.  Violence also consists of emotional insults used to belittle and demean, as well as manipulative strategies employed to exert control over others.

I’ve been a part of Christian culture long enough to hear my fair share of violent talk from men attempting to bully me into their vision for the world.  I’ve been condemned for the same “immoral activities” the Sena attacked the Indian women for.  As a student at a Christian college, I constantly read fliers or letters in the student newspaper about how indecently the girls on campus dressed.  We were told that it was our fault for causing the men to stumble and that if we were good Christians we would dress differently.  Looking back, I know that in that conservative Midwestern environment we actually were extremely modest in our dress, but had been manipulated into feeling sinful and guilty by those wishing to control us and abdicate their personal issues onto us.

This same violent manipulation is used by those who blame women for getting raped because of their appearance or who tell women that they deserve to be hit by their husbands.  Choosing to emotionally terrorize women and force blame onto women for the sins of men is simply just another form of violent control.  And using religion and cultural ideology as rationales for the violence makes its impact all the more damaging.

So I find campaigns like the pink chaddis to be inspiring.  These are rallying cries that bring together women in order to overturn the manipulation and control.  The violence and bullying can easily continue controlling women unless an effort is made to take a stand.  These women are telling the world that they have a right to not be humiliated, guilt-tripped, or terrorized by ideologies.  They will not let fear permit the strong arm of violence to destroy their lives.

And unlike in ages past where women were bullied into silence, thankfully these days it is difficult for women’s voices not to be heard.  We just have to speak up

Read more

The Price of Energy

Posted on

This blog post killed a three year old little boy.

This past week I took the time to research where the energy I use in my house comes from. I don’t know why, but I was shocked to discover that the energy I use is connected to mountaintop removal. Mountaintop removal is a destructive form of coal mining in which entire mountains are literally blown up. This process is devastating hundreds of square miles of Appalachia; polluting the headwaters of rivers that provide drinking water to millions of Americans; and destroying a distinctly American culture that has endured for generations. I knew about the evils of mountaintop removal, but for some reason I though that I wasn’t affected by it in this area of the country. But apparently Austin Energy obtains some of its energy from coal “mined” through mountaintop removal in Black Mountain, VA. The strip mining in this area is responsible for the 2004 death of three-year-old Jeremy Davidson. He was asleep in his bed when a half-ton boulder plummetted off the mountain and flattened a path directly across his bed. He died instantly. So whether I like it or not, creating this blog post on my laptop connects me to the death of this child.

What’s difficult here is that Austin Energy is fairly advanced in its goals for increasing its percentages of clean energy. It is leading the way in resourcing wind energy and provides amazing rebates to homeowners wanting to install solar panels on their homes. We were at Home Depot this past weekend and stopped to chat with the rep at the solar panel info table. Installing solar panels in Austin is probably one of the most cost effective and easy places in the country to do so. That said, we still don’t have a spare $25,000 upfront cash sitting around to do it.

It’s frustrating. I can’t afford to take the major steps to change the system, so I let three-year-olds pay the ultimate price? Okay, it’s more than frustrating – it seriously pisses me off. I hate having no choice but to be complicit in injustice knowing that there is little I can do to change the situation. So at this point I need to see hope in the $20 billion of the stimulus package going to green energy technology. I know it doesn’t solve all the problems – like how some things like mountaintop removal should just be illegal. But if the system is too big for me to effectively take responsibility for my actions, I respect it when the system itself takes steps towards responsibility.

At least it’s a start.

Read more

Empowering Young Consumers

Posted on

So apparently Dora the Explorer is getting a makeover. I have a preschool daughter, so Dora is a tad ubiquitous around here. Even before we had ever allowed Emma to watch a single Dora episode she knew who Dora was. It’s commercial, it’s branding, but that’s the way it is. So I know I shouldn’t complain too much that Mattel and Nickelodeon announced recently that they will unveil a new tween Dora this fall, but it still bugs me. Of course they are going to milk the cash-cow for all its worth, but I’m a tad suspicious of this new manifestation of Dora.

Dora for the most part used to be a good preschool obsession. She went on adventures, she spoke Spanish, she used logical processing. I liked my daughter admiring this round, fearless, exploring chica. Then the powers that be introduced Dora’s cousin Diego and gave him all the cool adventures regulating Dora to various princess, mermaid, and babysitting “adventures.” And now this new tween Dora seems intent on solidifying gender stereotypes even further. While Dora’s new image is being kept under wraps for now, I found the teaser press release to be depressing. The main adjective used multiple times to describe the new Dora is “fashionable.” I’m sorry Mattel, but teaching kids to be fashioned obsessed consumers is not “empowering girls.” I’m sure it will sell well and make them lots of money, but lets cut the crap please.

But even as I write that I recognize the futility of asking a corporate entity to refrain from indoctrinating children into the cult of consumerism. But sometimes it would be nice to not have the world conspiring against my ideals.

Read more

Changes at Emerging Women

Posted on

So last week I annouced the relaunch of the Emerging Parents blog. Today I want to (finally) announce that the new Emerging Women site. We now have a cleaner more navigable look and are hosted exclusively on our own domain. So head over to www.emergingwomen.us to check out our new site and join the conversation there.

Besides a well needed redesign, this change was prompted by the need to move away from a membership style blog. We had simply grown too big for that format to continue to work for us. From now on we will be accepting submission for posting, but will attempt to remain as open source as possible. We also hope to serve as a resource connecting people in the emerging conversation to the voices of the women in its midst – so check out the community page!

I look forward to continuing to explore the emerging church conversation with others who care about the distinct voice and concerns of women at the blog. I encourage everyone to drop by and comment on what you would like to see as we move forward with this new site.

Read more

Faith and Daytime TV

Posted on

So I’ve found myself inadvertently watching episodes of The View recently. Not by choice mind you – in general I despise talk shows, I’ve never even seen a full episode of Oprah. But by the time I take Emma to the kid fit class at the Y, drop Aidan off in the nursery, and hop on the elliptical in a vague attempt to not be a complete blob, I get my choice of closed captioned ESPN, CNN, or The View. I hate sports and there is really just so much economic crisis one can take, so The View it is.

This morning I caught it in the middle of a discussion on religion and the afterlife. I’m not sure about the context and I didn’t catch the whole conversation (trying to turn sideways to read a screen while trying to keep up the cardio-fat-burn pace was a tad difficult), but the whole thing was just an interesting commentary on popular conceptions of religion in America. There was of course the confused questioning of terrorists who kill others to get their virgins in the afterlife and Whoopi Goldberg’s slamming of the Catholic church for selling indulgences (really). But then there was the typical dichotomy between physical and spiritual life. A couple of the ladies agreed with the Jewish perspective (as they described it) that it is what we do here on earth that matters. That our actions and how we treat others are what really matter. Of course this visibly upset Elizabeth Hasselbeck (who I will always think of as Elizabeth from Survivor), who emphatically made it known that if it is this life that matters then we’re all screwed. The only hope we can have is to escape all this and go to heaven when we die. And of course in typical talk show fashion, at this point just as the conversation was getting interesting, Barbara Walters jumped in with a freaking product promotion. Apparently no matter what we think of heaven and hell, we can all enjoy going to Chili’s.

I felt like shouting over the Janis Joplin blaring through my earbuds – “where’s the third way??!!!” Seriously, I’m sick of this either/or business. But as I thought about it, even within the church we have difficulty entertaining the idea that this life can be a both/and. The idea that our spirituality is intertwined with our physicality just isn’t discussed. We are far too accustomed to dividing life into doing good works or going to heaven when we die. We have become extreme caricatures like Whoopi and Elizabeth on The View – so entrench in our own ideology that we ignore the truth in what the other is saying. Our theology has descended to the level of daytime television.

I’m reminded of the pre-election thing both Obama and McCain did with Rick Warren. The evangelical church loved McCain’s answers to the faith questions because he was very clear and absolute. He choose a side and made his position known. Obama was far more the both/and guy. He saw the complexity in the issues and chose to acknowledge it. He didn’t succumb  to the feel good easy answers, but was okay with the ambiguity and mystery that is simply a part of the faith. I admire that.

I’m sick of soundbites and either/or extremes when it comes to faith. I don’t care if it boosts ratings and grows your church following – ignoring truth for the sake of ideology just doesn’t make sense. Forget the popularity ploys of liberal vs. conservative or us vs. them, living in mystery is a far more faithful approach.

Read more

Shared Experience

Posted on

For Valentine’s this year Mike and I went to the Moulin Rouge sing along at the Alamo Drafthouse. For those of you not privileged to live in Austin, the Drafthouse is what all movie theaters should be – good food, good drinks, good movies (and often even better prefilm entertainment), and creative special events (like the Vampire Prom last fall, Lord of the Rings viewing marathons complete with meals at all seven hobbit dining times…). So we made it a date and headed to the theater for a night of freedom, beauty, truth, and love (complete with theater supplied props like strobe-light diamond rings and green fairy glow sticks). And I can honestly say I haven’t had that much fun in a long time.

First I have to say that Moulin Rouge is one of my all time favorite movies. A deconstruction of how reality and art inform and subsume each other complete with soundtrack – what’s not to love? I shamelessly say that I not only know the words to all the songs by heart, but I’ve worn out three (yes three) CDs of the soundtrack. But my point here is not how much I love the movie, but to reflect on the viewing experience.

When I first saw it eight years ago, I had no clue what to expect. I knew it was an artsy film and when people would talk about it they inevitably asked (in whispers) if I knew what “voulez vous couchez avec moi ce soir” meant. The theater I saw it in was filled with almost exclusively teenage girls – all there because of the popularity of the Christina Aguilera version of “Lady Marmalade.” So I watched the movie utterly mesmerized and sat in stunned silence as the credits rolled and the teens around me started chatting and saying what a stupid movie it was. I heard the same response repeatedly in the weeks to come – “stupid movie, “I didn’t get it,” “it’s not even a good musical.” They didn’t get what they expected to see – a film/musical/love story that fit the normal constraints of those genre – and so their response was rejection and ridicule.

I didn’t have a chance to see Moulin Rouge on the large screen again until this past week at the sing along. This time the theater was full of devoted fans – those of us who have watched the movie and listened to the music so many times we know it by heart. We sang our hearts out at the top of our lungs in communal admiration of the film. This shared experience couldn’t have been more different from my first viewing of the film. This crowd knew what to expect – we were a community drawn together based on our admiration of the film.  Granted community bound by admiration of a particular movie isn’t necessarily substantial, but it was still nice to be a part of.

And I could go off about the pros and cons of likeminded community. Is it good to surround ourselves with those exactly like us? How does such encouragement help us grow? Or do we retreat into ourselves if we aren’t pushed to engage the Other? But honestly, it was just nice to experience that moment in time. To enjoy it and notice how different it was from a previous experience of the same event. Silly perhaps – but it was nice to find pockets of communal oneness.

Read more

Listening to Pete Rollins

Posted on

I spent Saturday at the Journey Warehouse getting to hear from Pete Rollins. In all, it was a fantastic day. Besides getting an entire day to hang out with adults (without the kids) and getting to listen to Pete, I got to hang out with really cool people. It was great to see Laci Scott again and to finally meet Glenn Barbier, and Adam and Brooke Moore. Good times.

But of course the point of the day was to listen and learn from Pete. Which was of course amazing. It was refreshing to be around someone so unapologetically intellectual. At one point I asked him how those who aren’t intellectual or cultural creatives find a voice in his community Ikon and he simply replied that he just makes them that way. That he believes that all people are capable of creativity and thinking, all they need is encouragement. For once it was just stinking nice to not hear excuses or apologies for thinking deeply. And there was a lot of deep thoughts being thrown around yesterday. I’m not going to bother trying to summarize his talk – just highlight a couple of things.

I loved his portrayal of the church as a fetish. He describes our approach to church as like a child to a security blanket – something that protects us from dealing with life as it really is. We use church to escape from reality instead of engaging that reality. So we sing with certainity about justice but don’t actually do it. The church is actually what stands in the way of our transforming the world. Pete insists instead that church needs to become the place where there is no certainty – where we are free to doubt and question and seek. But that as we enter the world we are to live with certainty – to live as if God exists (no matter what we believe) and to live by his call to justice. It is our everyday lives that should be lived radically for transformation. We need to get over church as an impotent force that inhibits life, but make it alive by making it unstable and unsure.

I also was intrigued by his challenging of fellow Belfast native C.S. Lewis (and Chesterton) on the subject of longing for God. As Chesterton suggested that every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God, but Pete asked “what if he is really just looking for sex?” He explored how we often use God as an excuse for our longings. We desire comfort or meaning in life and so find that in church but give it the name God (relating back to the fetish thing). This actually dismisses God and belittles him. The point isn’t that we all have a “God-shaped hole” that causes us to long for God, but that when we long for God he shows up in the form of the God-shaped hole. The idea isn’t “seek and THEN you shall find” but that the seeking is the finding. The need for God is created by the desire for God. The illustration Pete used was that of parents who say their life was incomplete before they had kids. But technically before that point their life wasn’t really incomplete. We can’t go around saying that single people are incomplete because they don’t have kids. But the statement is true in that once the couple had a child, the incompleteness appeared retroactively. Once they have the child, and only then, they can truly say that their life was incomplete before. Once we seek for God we start seeking him. I liked this take on things because it helps get around many of the imperialistic overtones to evangelical discourse. Instead of telling people that we understand their desires better than they themselves, we can start to understand them as they are. It moves us from a position of superiority to that of friend. But at the same time I find it so hard to question ideas that are so ingrained in evangelical thought (especially for a post-wheatie) that they are assumed to be biblical.

Okay I should probably stop rambling and butchering these ideas and just tell you to go hear Pete or read his books. What he’s saying is brilliant – it challenges assumptions but also pushes us out to live rightly. This is intellectualism – but real life intellectualism. Thinking deeply about real life and how we live – this is the stuff we all need, even when it shakes us up.

Read more