Julie Clawson

onehandclapping

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

Garage Sale

Posted on June 9, 2007July 8, 2025

So that was us this weekend – Garage Sale 8 AM. We sorted through our junk and attempted to get rid of wedding presents we haven’t used in 7 1/2 years, books representing theologies we no longer subscribe to (the ones that escaped the “burn” pile at least), and clothes that 2 years after giving birth I finally am admitting I will never fit into again. The typical stuff.

What I wasn’t expecting were the people. Not that they’d show up, but how well, interesting, they could be. There were those who showed up asking for things I would be appalled to ever have in my house much less sell (guns (isn’t that illegal???), Joel Osteen books). Not that they would know that, but still. Then there were those who after looking around our garage asked if we had and snowmobiles or go-carts for sale – does it look like we do?! A couple of ladies told me that I was a good person because I was selling John Piper and Max Lucado books (did they ever stop to think why I was getting rid of those books?) Then there was the lady who let her dog wander into our house and left without it. She did come back and get it, but come on, she FORGOT her dog at a garage sale.

The conversations though were the strangest. One guy was amazed at how clean my garage was and so proceeded to tell me all about why his garage is so dirty. Apparently he works on cars and I got to hear the entire story of how he rebuilt a golf cart and painted it like a bumblebee. Another guy (after buying the huge bag of cassette tapes) decided to let me know how evil he thought this new fangled invention the CD was and how he will never switch over to using it. The most annoying man asked me about my arm and then told me how great it was that I didn’t let not having an arm get me down. I wasn’t like those Indians who blah, blah, blah (fill in negative stereotypes and racist dribble if you must). I swear I’m too nice and let people ramble on forever about crap that I could care less about. Yes, I know that’s kinda part of the job description for church planter, but bumblebee golf carts? is that really part of the deal?

Anyway just thought I’d share since I’m too exhausted to think of much else to say at this point.

Read more

Church Signs Again – It’s all About Me

Posted on June 8, 2007July 8, 2025

So our local crummy church sign church finally got around to changing their sign (since I last posted about them). Here’s the newest display (recreated of course) –

Unlike the last sign, this one at least makes sense, but it is no less problematic. I’ve heard this phrase before. Actually, its usually said as “the Bible is God’s personal love letter to you,” but I guess they must have run out of room on the sign. Because I am more familiar with this phrase, my first thought as I drove past the new sign was that this one was at least harmless. Then I started to think about it.

How in the world is the Bible God’s personal letter to me? When did I become the center of the universe and God’s revelation?! Okay, so I understand that the probable intent of the sign is to make people feel all warm and fuzzy that God cares about them personally. And as much as I cringe at religion based on that which makes one feel good emotionally, I too believe that God does care for each of us. But to twist that idea into an individualistic philosophy that pretty much throws out the entire historic and cultural context of scripture is messed up. People start to read the passages as if they were written to them personally and not the church as a whole. (I’m assuming they will only actually take the time to read the epistles so I’m not too worried that they will think that God’s instructions to Hosea were a personal note intended for them…). The church then becomes focused on helping people continue feel like they are the center of God’s attention (and God help that church if that person doesn’t feel like they are getting the attention they deserve).

Sorry, but I can’t do that. The Bible is NOT God’s personal letter to me. The Gospel is not about ME. The church is not about ME. So __________ Baptist Church you once again win the crummy Church sign award. Congratulations!

Read more

Interfaith Encounters

Posted on June 7, 2007July 8, 2025

So got to spend the better part of the day today in Chicago (the city as opposed to the general geographic area). I caught the train at the end of line at a station surrounded by cornfields and spent the next hour watching those cornfields change into small farms and horse corrals, then cookie-cutter suburbs, then nice rich suburbs, then older artsy suburbs, then poor ethic suburbs, then run-down factory zones, until I finally entered the land of skyscrapers and trendy loft apartments. It was a most interesting ride to watch the history of urban sprawl pass by my window.

I went downtown to participate in a ecumenical, inter-faith clergy discussion. It was an amazing group that had gathered at Wicker Park Lutheran Church for lunch and discussion. I think I was the only pseudo-evangelical. Others represented Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Unitarians and from outside Christianity there were two Zen Buddhist Priests and an Emerging Jewish Rabbi. The “clergy cafe” is hosted by Reverend Clare Butterfield (Unitarian-Universalist) of Faith in Place, a Creation care ministry based in downtown Chicago. Mike attended the last gathering (read about it here) so I got to go this time.

The topic for discussion was family systems theory and its implications for leadership for people in modern congregations and modern times. We were given a book list to choose from that dealt with systems theory. I read Peter Steinke’s Healthy Congregations. Having not been to seminary (yet) where it seemed most people there had studied systems theory, I felt a bit lost at points in the discussion. We spent a lot of time discussing the central necessity of self-differentiation in systems theory. As Wikipedia explains –

Differentiation of self refers to one’s ability to separate one’s own intellectual and emotional functioning from that of the family. Bowen spoke of people functioning on a single continuum or scale. Individuals with “low differentiation” are more likely to become fused with predominant family emotions. (A related concept is that of an undifferentiated ego mass, which is a term used to describe a family unit whose members possess low differentiation and therefore are emotionally fused.) Those with “low differentiation” depend on others approval and acceptance. They either conform themselves to others in order to please them, or they attempt to force others to conform to themselves. They are thus more vulnerable to stress and they struggle more to adjust to life changes. (534 Bowen 1974) To have a well-differentiated “self” is an ideal that no one realizes perfectly. They recognize that they need others, but they depend less on other’s acceptance and approval. They do not merely adopt the attitude of those around them but acquire their principles thoughtfully. These help them decide important family and social issues, and resist the feelings of the moment. Thus, despite conflict, criticism, and rejection they can stay calm and clear headed enough to distinguish thinking rooted in a careful assessment of the facts from thinking clouded by emotion. What they decide and say matches what they do. When they act in the best interests of the group, they choose thoughtfully, not because they are caving in to relationship pressures. Confident in their own thinking, they can either support another’s view without becoming wishy-washy or reject another’s view without becoming hostile.

The lack of self-differentiation can result in conflict and the most unhealthy way to address conflict is to cut oneself off from it. “The opposite of an emotional cut-off is an open relationship. It is a very effective way to reduce a group’s over-all anxiety. Continued low anxiety permits motivated family members to begin the slow steps to better differentiation.”

It is all a very fascinating topic, but as with most traditionally modern expressions of faith, I felt the Emerging Church just didn’t fit. In Systems Theory (according to my very limited understanding thereof) stronger leaders and more distinct individuals are necessary for a group/church to be healthy. This seems to fly in the face of organic, missional approaches to church where hierarchy is replaced with community. Also those from the mainline perspectives couldn’t understand that for some in the emerging church, leaving a church (cutting-off) may be the only healthy option. They couldn’t fathom that there could be churches where questions weren’t welcome and intellectual honesty was suppressed for the sake of tradition and doctrine (or where ecumenical/interfaith gatherings weren’t the norm, much less approved of). So to assume that to leave a church is always unhealthy isn’t something I can concede. It may not always be painless, but sometimes it is the only possible way to stay alive for many people involved in the emerging church (and is often a decision that is made for them anyway). But the conversation was a good reminder that my post-evangelical emerging experience is hardly a common story or issue outside of the bubble I exist in (not that that makes it any less valid, just different).

It was a fun day and I’m still processing our discussion. I hope I can take the opportunity to gather again with this group in the future.

Read more

Cultural Perspectives on Faith

Posted on June 6, 2007July 8, 2025

I was recently reminded of a faith encounter i had a number of years ago. When I was a sophomore in high school, my grandfather took the whole family skiing in Utah for Christmas. Being a Texas girl, that happened to be my first “White Christmas.” Since I had never skied before, I needed some sort of instruction. We discovered that there was a Mormon group in Park City that offered free private ski lessons to the handicapped. So taking full advantage of their missional outreach program, I signed up.

My ski instructor was a young college age woman who obviously thought that getting to ski all the time was a great way to fulfill her mission requirement (sounds good to me). She reminded me of most of the zealous Christian youth I knew – excited about her faith, convinced of exclusive rightness of her religion, and generally ignorant about what she actually believed. In our ski lift conversations it became obvious that she wasn’t a really intellectually aware. After discovering I was from Texas she asked me if there were actually cities in Texas and if everyone rode a horse to school. After assuring her that we do drive cars, she asked what books I like to read. I happened to be reading Thomas More’s Utopia for fun over break and started telling her about it. I made the mistake of mentioning the commentary I had read that claimed that the book influenced the founding of Mormonism. She took issue with that, serious issue. God gave them their faith, no human book could ever have influenced it. I was wrong, faith is from God not man. I dropped the conversation and we got back to my pathetic attempts to ski.

Looking back I know that I would have had the same reaction if someone had told me then that there was more of Plato than Patriarchs in my faith. I came from the camp that our 20th century versions of Christianity were the way the faith always had been and always should be practiced (not that such was always explicitly taught, just that the alternatives were never mentioned). To concede cultural influences would signify change over time. I’ve since gone through the process of accepting the subjective nature of interpretation, the necessity for faith, and the cultural influences on my faith. Such things no longer herald the advents of the immanent destruction of my faith’s foundation, but instead are fascinating avenues to be explored as I dig deeper into what I believe. But it scares some people to death. They react like the Mormon girl of the ski lift – denial and dismissal (and sometimes ridicule). It makes for difficult conversation. Not that I am any “better,” I just react differently at this point in my life.

Read more

Feed the Hungry

Posted on June 5, 2007July 8, 2025

Today is Hunger Awareness Day and America’s Second Harvest is teaming up with ConAgra Foods to mark it. The tandem is making it easy as a simple mouse click for you to provide four bags of groceries to those who are in need.

For each click, ConAgra Foods will donate $1 to America’s Second Harvest equivalent to 4 bags of groceries – up to 60,000 bags. It’s never been easier for you to help your neighbors in need! (and yes I know there are environmental and human rights issues with ConAgra, but as I’ve mentioned in other recent posts, I’m going to support justice wherever I can).

Click here –

35.1 million Americans do not know where their next meal is going to come from. One in every five children are born into poverty. Almost half of the low-income families that utilized a food pantry in 2001 were working families with kids.

So click the button to do your part! And then consider doing something more.
(HT – Faithfully Liberal)

Read more

Faith in a Dress

Posted on June 4, 2007July 8, 2025


So I’ve posted about this over at Emerging Women, but I’ll post something here too. Pam Hogeweide and Erin Word are the guest editors for the June issue of the Porpoise Diving Life e-zine (“Picking Up Where Purpose-Driven Peters Out”). This issue is called Progress: Faith in a Dress and is devoted “to the women who have been emerging from the shadows to engage in the fullness of their callings in the 21st century”. A number of women contributed to the e-zine, and the newly created Faith in a Dress blog has a even wider selection of contributions by women on this topic.

I contributed a couple of articles to the issue – The Feminine Side of God and Why I Gave My Daughter a Strong Name. Go check them out along with all the other great articles by the women who contributed to this project.

Read more

Ethical Consumption

Posted on June 3, 2007July 8, 2025


I have spent a very large amount of time this past week surfing the web for sites on ethical consumption. I’m writing a separate piece about the why behind all that, but it has been an interesting adventure. And I’ve found a lot of really cool sites.

What is ethical consumption you might ask. It starts with me the consumer admitting that while I want to avoid rampant materialism, I am not going to be one of those people who move off the grid and have a zero impact year or something (as my last post explored, for most of us ethical living can’t be an all or nothing approach). I will need to buy stuff from time to time. So given that, I want to do so ethically. That means I ask the hard questions – where has this come from? what is its past, present, and future effect on the environment? is it harmful to my physical or psychological health? and were the people who made it treated humanely and paid a fair wage at all stages of the process? It is a lot of stuff to weigh as one makes a purchasing decision and it is a lot harder than the culture of convenience we are used to.

There are many people who think that ethical consumption is not only hard, but that it is impossible economically. That to buy with one’s values contradicts the laws of economics. That’s why the t-shirt displayed above made me laugh as I stumbled across it this past week. My thoughts – One – do the “laws of economics” really matter in light of environmental chaos and injustice? Are people really so callous to favor economic theory above creation care and human rights? (don’t answer that…) and Two – in the law of supply and demand it is the consumer who creates the demand. We demand that we want ethical options (environmentally sustainable, healthy, and fairly traded) and the supply will increase. But it takes us actually doing it, being ethical consumers not just blogging idealists, for that to happen.

One of the cool sites that I discovered this past week that helps make it happen is the New American Dream. They are a great resource site for living ethically. The new dream is to live consciously (feel more alive and aligned with your values), buy wisely (use your power as a consumer to create change) and make a difference (let your actions speak for themselves – then speak up anyways). I’m going to have fun exploring their site and using their resources.

Ways to shop ethically are out there, sometimes it just takes a lot of time and effort to find them. I’m toying with the idea of trying to start a blog or something where people can pool resources about stuff like this. A place to review products, share shopping links, give environmental research updates and other fun stuff. What do you think? Worthwhile? Doable? Wanna help?

Read more

God, Missional Living, and Social Justice

Posted on June 2, 2007July 8, 2025

At our church retreat this past weekend, we explored our conceptions of God. During one small group discussion the topic wandered to how our view of God affects our affinity for personal piety and missional living. Jen mentioned that in a recent class on Spiritual Formation her classmates had shared what activities shape their spiritual lives. In ranking a list of spiritual practices, social justice consistently appeared at the bottom of nearly everyone’s lists. She had recently been reading Gary Haugen (IJM) who claims that God is a God of justice and that if we serve this God we will work for justice. Her question to the group was if God really is a God of justice then why is working for justice such a low priority for Christians? Who is getting it wrong?

There were of course more nuances to her question and I am reporting my perception of it as well, but it led to some good discussion. How we conceive of God – which attributes we deem most important, and which ones we ignore – has a huge affect on how we live. If we don’t think that God cares about the poor (or if such a thought never crosses our radar) then why should we as Christians think that caring for the poor is a spiritual act? If we see God as most concerned with our personal relationship with him, as opposed to God being most concerned about the oppressed that is going to affect how we live. If it is all about our relationship with God, then acts of personal piety (reading our bible, praying, holy living) become most important. But if God’s heart for the oppressed is focused on more then acts of justice (serving the poor, working for social change, lobbying to stop human rights violations) receive more attention. In the evangelical world that I am used to, the personal piety side has received the most attention often to the exclusion of justice issues. In fact, I’ve listened to sermons where the pastor said that God does not care about the poor and we should not be working to help them. But I’ve also heard that there are churches that focus so exclusively on justice issues that personal piety is ignored.

It would be easy to say that all that is needed is balance – equal doses of personal piety and justice – but I’m not convinced that is really the best approach. Neither approach should be ignored, but I continue to see more and more danger in the “it’s all about me” approach to faith. God spoke into cultures and communities, the message of hope is for the world. If we think that we are the most important thing to God, it is a lot harder to get beyond our individualism and help others. But if we focus on God’s compassion for the world, we will grow personally through the discipline of helping others. The personal piety has a place, but is something that I believe should be a natural result of our service to God and others and not the central focus of our faith.

The difficulty occurs in how to convey that message. Changing how we talk about God is a huge step. We also need to examine what cultural assumptions we bring to our interpretations of biblical texts. We can open people’s eyes to themes of justice and God’s compassion for the oppressed through the biblical narrative. Instead of seeing Ruth as the perfect example of the submissive and committed Christian wife (which has its own issues), we can see the sabbath practices that care for the poor being displayed.

But it has to be more than a matter of perspective. We need to stop living on the extremes. I know this approach will anger some, but I think we need to stop presenting everything as an all or nothing. Too often when faith groups talk about seeking justice they land on the “sell everything and give it to the poor” stance. We present the Shane Claibornes and Mother Teresas as our examples. And the choice becomes to either care and utterly and drastically change one’s lifestyle, or to do nothing at all. The choice is so extreme that most people give up without doing anything. So while I know that there is needed discussion as to whether one can really live the American Dream and truly be seeking justice, why would doing nothing be preferable to helping people do what they can where they can? Baby steps right? So instead of telling people how evil American Idol is and telling us that we are messed up for caring more about it than the number of troops who die in Iraq (all of which may be true), I’m going to support efforts like “Idol Gives Back” that helps raise awareness and gets people doing something.

And I know this post has rambled all over the place, but I think that changing the perception of the evangelical church from a “me” centered faith to a “God/other” centered faith is a necessary step. Its a huge step that means changing our perception of who God is and changing the way we live. Missional living should be the goal, but it needs to be presented in ways that are comprehensible and doable for the average church-goer.

Read more

Watch Your Mouth? Offensive Language and Christianity

Posted on June 1, 2007July 8, 2025

Andrew Jones has an interesting post up about offensive language. He writes about recent offense that has been taken by the usage of certain words and then delves into the history of what offends. He proposes that in premodern times people were offended by words that were “excommunicatory in nature – offensive words were religious terms that threatened punishment and damnation.” In modern times it was “words that cause most offense affront our personal and private sensibilities. These offensive words are normally associated with private body parts, bodily functions of a toilet nature, and sexual relations.” In our postmodern times “it is exclusionary language that causes most offence. Marginalizing people due to their race, gender, disability or status is about the most offensive thing you can say.” He then mentions the bible passages that refer to offensive language including “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” Eph 4:29.

Call me a stereotypical postmodern, but I understand the pre- and postmodern views on offensive language, but just can’t justify the modern. Biblically if the point is not to use the Lord’s name in vain (which referred to making flippant curses or oaths) or not to tear anyone down, the modern sensibility just doesn’t fit. In fact the modern approach does just the opposite – instead of building people up, modern bans of “offensive language” exist to exclude and ridicule. Most of the language that is offensive under the modern sensibilities (bodily and sexual references) is called vulgar. While we have come to perceive of “vulgar” as anything bad, dirty, and lower, it was originally just a term of derision used for the lower classes. So anything associated with the poor, uneducated masses (including their language) was considered vulgar and inappropriate for civilized folk.

So usage of terms that implied that one didn’t subscribe to classism, racism and the like became taboo. Proper people don’t use the germanic/anglo language of the poor (shit, fuck) they use the latinate language of the rich and powerful (excrement, fornicate). Over time the taboo took on mythic dimensions. Certain words came to hold almost magical powers. Say a certain word (incant this spell) and you have sinned (cursed yourself to hell). I doubt that most Christians actually stop to think about what sort of theology they are promoting when they insist that just saying “fuck” is a sin.

The fact that for most Christians it’s okay to use language of hate and derision (making fun of homosexuals, women, and other religions), but its sinful to say certain “vulgar” words displays a seriously messed up theology in my opinion. We are told to build others up with our language and encouraging language of hate while forbidding the language of the poor achieves the exact opposite. So label me as just being postmodern, but I see the more constructive (and biblical) option to be to avoid language that excludes, tears down, and ridicules. So I really don’t care if someone drops the “f-bomb” but I won’t abide “you throw like a girl.”

So it has nothing to do with wanting to be hip and cool or selling out to the culture if I choose to use a word that for a certain period of English history was considered taboo. It has more to do with actually considering my theology of sin, understanding the call to love my neighbor, and living accordingly. But that just pushes the walls of the box a little too far for most people…

Read more

Arcadia

Posted on May 31, 2007July 8, 2025

My Mother’s Day gift was tickets to a play of my choosing. So yesterday we dropped Emma off at a babysitter and went down to the University of Chicago’s Court Theater to see one of my favorite plays – Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia. We also got to wander around the campus stopping at Chicago Theological Seminary (my top choice in my wishful thinking return to school). It was a fun day and a great production of the play (read the Chicago Trib’s review here).

Arcadia published in 1993 was written by Tom Stoppard (most commonly known for his play Rosencranz and Guildenstern are Dead and the screenplay for Shakespeare in Love). As explained by Wikipedia – “Arcadia explores the relationship between past and present, order and disorder, and the certainty of knowledge. It looks at the nature of evidence and truth in the context of modern ideas about history, mathematics and physics. It shows how the clues left by the past are interpreted by scholars. The play refers to a wide array of subjects, including mathematics, physics, thermodynamics, computer algorithms, fractals, population dynamics, chaos theory vs. determinism (especially in the context of love and death), classics, landscape design, romanticism vs. classicism, English literature (particularly poetry), Byron, 18th century periodicals, modern academia, and even South Pacific botany. These are the concrete topics of conversation; the more abstract philosophical resonances veer off into epistemology, nihilism, the origins of lust, and madness.

Arcadia is set in Sidley Park, an English country house in the years 1809 and 1989 alternately, juxtaposing the activities of two modern scholars and the house’s current residents with the lives of those who lived there 180 years earlier. In 1809, Thomasina Coverly, the daughter of the house, is a precocious teenager with ideas about mathematics well ahead of her time. She studies with her tutor, Septimus Hodge, a friend of Lord Byron, who is an unseen guest in the house. In 1989, a writer and an academic converge on the house: Hannah Jarvis, the writer, is investigating a hermit who once lived on the grounds; Bernard Nightingale, a professor of literature, is investigating a mysterious chapter in the life of Byron. As their investigations unfold, helped by Valentine Coverly, a post-graduate student in mathematical biology, the truth about what happened in 1809 is gradually revealed. The play’s set features a large table, which is used by the characters in both 1809 and 1989. Props are not removed when the play switches time period, so that the books, coffee mugs, quill pens, portfolios, and laptop computers of 1809 and 1989 appear alongside each other in a blurring of past and present. ”

The title refers to the pastoral ideal of Arcadia and to the memento mori spoken by Death: “Et in Arcadia ego” (“Even in Arcadia, I exist”). This theme presented itself a few times as I reflected on the play. The concept of determinism is a constant theme in Arcadia. Are our lives determined? If we had a big enough computer (or enough time, paper, and pencils) could a formula be written that tells the future and explains the past? We can program fractals – why not everything? But if populations are “determined’ to follow a formula even taking into account small fluctuations of nature (the populations of goldfish regulates) where does that leave the concept of justice? If everything (even tragedy and death) can be explained mathematically there can be no room for grief or outrage in the face of an inevitable determined universe. But death intrudes even in Arcadia and we are grieved. The influences of human emotion and love contradict the faith in an all encompassing deity of science. Romanticism and Classicalism collide.

Death also enters the play in a more concrete form. We learn that the mathematical genius Thomasina dies in a fire on the night before her seventeenth birthday (the age her mother insists she should be married by before she is “educated beyond eligibility”). Her tutor then takes up the pursuit to prove her theories, become a lunatic hermit to do so. But the death of a woman “condemned” by genius in a fire has direct parallels to the “madwoman in the attic” theory. Referring to Bertha, Rochester’s insane wife in Jane Eyre, who died in a fire, this concept was adopted by feminist literary theorists as a metaphor for the madness imposed upon women when they were denied using their talents because of their sex. Here Thomasina on the verge of great discovery and threatened with the cage of conventionality finds that even in Arcadia, death exists. Paradise has its flaws (especially a paradise of human creation). For all the talk that the universe is determined – demands of society and the accidental tipping of a candle intrude to shatter dreams and introduce chaos to the mix. Understanding the fluctuation of populations of pigeons and goldfish through math and science doesn’t see death as a bad thing (unless you are the pigeon), but the death of a friend and family member has a more serious effect.

Not that death is the main theme of the play, it just struck me during this encounter with the work. I was also intrigued and amused by the exploration of interpretation and truth. Our assumptions in the present influence our reading of the past. Texts takes on new meaning and small bits of evidence become the shaky foundation for entire theories. Our postmodern humility in accepting the limits of our understanding was clearly illustrated in the negative examples of characters’ hubris. The discovery of knowledge and the fame in brings them prevents them from actually seeing the truth and leads to their downfall. It is a much more relevant theme to me now than it was a decade ago when I first encountered this play.

Anyway, it was a fun day and great play. It’s run has just been extended if anyone in the Chicago area in interested in attending.

Read more
  • Previous
  • 1
  • …
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • …
  • 83
  • Next
Julie Clawson

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

Search

Archives

Categories

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

All Are Welcome Here

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
fb-share-icon
Instagram
Buy me a coffee QR code
Buy Me a Coffee
©2025 Julie Clawson | Theme by SuperbThemes