A Broken and a Contrite Heart - Guest Post

I have written several pieces lately on the issue of violence, so when I received a newsletter from some friends of mine, written by the mother of one of them, I immediately resonated with the author's argument. She graciously allowed me to repost her article here for the benefit of my readers. I trust that others will find it as challenging as I did.


Jan Wood is the Executive Director of GOOD NEWS Associates. She is also an Associate with a ministry of speaking, writing, consulting and spiritual direction. She is the author of Christians at Work, Not Business as Usual and co-author of Practicing Discernment Together, Finding God’s Way Forward in Decision Making. 

Be sure to check out the organization's website at www.goodnewsassoc.org

***

Kudzu is a fast growing invasive species that snuffs out the plant life in its path. To folks’ dismay this plant that was originally imported to the US for its usefulness quickly covered everything in its path, covering roads, cars, trees and buildings and killing off other plant life by shading it from the light. It takes constant vigilance to keep it at bay.

Similarly, the national conversation after the Newtown school shootings have illumed that we Americans have become blind to and smothered by violence. Our national heart has been rightfully broken. We know that enough is enough. Things must be done. Yet the words, opinions, the self-justifications of every sector of our society pour over us like a tsunami. We feel both angry and numb. Broken and belligerent. Hopeful and helpless. But mostly helpless. This is so much bigger than any one of us.

The spirit of self-idolization and its ever-present servant—violence—has spread over and through our American culture muting and smothering the multitudes of individual goodnesses in the world.

The clinging vines of a violent, self-centered culture enwrap us all. They shape us. They enlighten us. They blind us. They shade us from the Light. Violences are pleasantly deceptive. There seems to be no direct connection between what we are immersed in and what we do. No direct connection between what we do and the pain we cause others. And we never notice that our souls—individually and nationally—have gradually become dimmed to the acute, unfiltered radiance of goodness and Light.

Changing a culture seems as impossible as trying to catch a cloud. Yet cultures are constantly changing. We have all seen this happen before our very eyes. As Americans we have cultivated a garden where violence is our ally and friend, our pleasure and entertainment, our safety and our inalienable right. It has become part and parcel of our worldview, our words and actions, and ultimately, our delusions. We have made all other lives and futures dispensable when violence suits our aims. And this part of our culture is destroying our souls, our relationships, our communities and our nation from the inside out. It is the kudzu of our souls.

There is something deep that is calling God’s people to the prophetic; a place of voluntary standing-with and repenting-for a deeply corrupted American culture. It isn’t enough to just try to be better than the culture. Deep compassion and broken hearts compel us to call out to God on behalf of our culture. As folks lustily call for their rights, their pleasures, their freedoms, their safety, their profits, let us simply stop. Stop inwardly justifying our own choices and sink into the broken heartedness that is called for. The list of what-everyone-else-should-and-must-do goes silent. In that space we can feel a deep well spring of repentance. A broken and contrite heart that simply collapses before God and cries out: “Oh God, forgive us!” We don’t know what to do. This is much bigger than us. Yet, we echo the Psalmist by praying

Create in us a clean heart, O God,

and put a new and right spirit within us.

Cast us not away from thy presence

and take not thy holy Spirit from us.

Restore to us the joy of thy salvation

and uphold us with a willing spirit.

May it begin with us.

Violence is not the Solution to Violence

While browsing Facebook the other day a picture caught my attention. (Unfortunately I cannot find a way to link to or embed it here.) It shows Jesus (in classic white-man Jesus appearance) holding a young child and talking to a bunch of men with the caption:

You have heard it said, "Love your enemy and do good to those who persecute you." But I say, if you feel threatened, don't hesitate to blow someone away. The Second Amendment gives you the right. Besides, the Founding Fathers were Christians, so it's all good.

In its hyperbole, this captures well a key concern I have with the rhetoric I hear coming from a certain segment of Americans. I find it particularly disturbing that many of those who espouse such views also present themselves as brothers and sisters in Christ. They fail to recognize an inherent contradiction in their thinking. They argue that they should have the right and the means to use violence to protect themselves from violence and forget that the very Jesus they proclaim himself stated unequivocally how we are to respond to those who threaten us.

You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your father in heaven.

Jesus' words should strike us as very radical. Perhaps they strike us as too radical, so we have to ignore them or dilute them in some manner because we cannot bring ourselves to actually apply them concretely. No, we are more comfortable with the idea of forcefully defending ourselves than with the idea of loving our enemies. We consider our Second Amendment rights more important than living out the words of Jesus. That should give us reason to stop and think.

In response to the violent rampages such as the one in Newtown, or in Aurora, or in any other number of cities in recent months and years, some, including the largest gun lobby in the country, cry out that the solution is to arm more people, to make guns more accessible so that criminals will be detered. I think this is a very false solution.

Violence is not the solution to violence.

More weapons does not equal more safety. Liz at These Square Pegs has a great article that points this out quite clearly, pointing out among other things that the risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms. If more guns made us more safe, we should be among the safest nations on earth, yet somehow we feel less safe. I will not feel more safe if more people are carrying weapons, ready to use them whenever they perceive a threat. I can imagine a scenario in which someone starts shooting in a Newtown- or Aurora-like scenario, and several other “well-intentioned” citizens pull out their weapons to shoot back. Only in the melee it is not clear who is shooting at whom and suddenly more people are dying because it has become an open gun-battle. Guns do not make us safer. Violence does not reduce violence.

We need to take the discussion in our culture beyond whether one has an uninfringed right to gun ownership and what restrictions are reasonable on guns. We need to talk about the culture we have created and continue to perpetuate that glorifies violence as the solution to problems. In the month since the Newtown massacre I have been to the movie theater a couple of times and in light of all these violent shootings I am struck by the number of films we produce and watch which effectively glorify violence. How many crime shows do we need on TV? Why are violent video games some of the most popular? I confess that I too enjoy some of these movies and TV shows (although I generally limit my video gaming to sports games and such violent escapades as Mario Kart), but I recognize that I need to examine my own consumption of these products. I don't think the solution is all or nothing, but I think we must rethink how we portray violence and stop teaching ourselves and our children implicitly (and now, with statements like those made by the NRA, explicitly) that violence solves problems.

We should re-envision our society. We can reduce levels of violence and the inclination to resort to it as a solution by changing the way we view and treat others. We can choose to not live in fear. We can choose to work towards a more just and equal society. Violence and the perceived need for guns will be reduced as we change the way we think and act toward one another. It is possible, but will not be easy. It will take a lot more effort, time and education than simply arming more people or posting armed guards in our schools. It will require a willingness to rethink our values. It will take sacrifice. But I believe the outcome will be worth it. (It will not require completely renouncing gun ownership. Many European countries with very strict gun laws, such as Germany, still have high levels of gun ownership, but not the levels of violence in the culture that we do.)

I fear that as a society we are not willing to have this conversation. I doubt that we are willing to sacrifice some very sacred cows in order to change our ways and reduce the culture of violence we have created. Most unfortunately, I question whether many within the church are willing to take the words of Jesus seriously. From the rhetoric I hear and see, too many Christians hold more strongly to their Second Amendment rights than to the teaching of Jesus. As God's Church we should be leading the change in society away from violence, but instead we often seem to be the ones holding most strongly to our culture of violence. This saddens me. But I will hold on to hope and will support those who advocate for change in this area, such as the former congressional representative from my district, Gabrielle Giffords, who herself was seriously injured in a mass shooting in Tucson two years ago.

I believe the time has come for change. Will we embrace it, or will we cling more strongly still to our culture of violence?

One Small Step for Women

There are so many things I would like to see change in this world, so many areas where the Kingdom of God has yet to be fully realized. As readers of this blog know, I am passionate about affirming the full equality of women and men in this world. I grieve over the many ways in which women are still excluded, marginalized, treated as inferior and silenced. Progress often seems painfully slow, but slow progress is still progress. I was reminded of this when I read a report from an acquaintance of my wife and I, who serves with her husband in training local health care workers in Kenya. Recently she made a trip to a remote village to celebrate the opening of a new medical dispensary.

We arrived for the first big meeting of the community to celebrate the new dispensary and to see how things were going. As is the custom the men sat under the community tree. It is called the tree of men. It is where the real business of the community happens. The women sat in a group separated and to the side. In Rendele culture women would never talk or even sit in such a meeting. Only men are allowed under the “tree of men.” But today was to be different. A historic first. A cultural shift was about to happen before our eyes. A mandatory condition of building and supporting the clinic was was that women had to participate in the leadership and in oversight. This is a standard requirement in the AIC clinic oversight committees. It is designed to begin to bring women into the leadership process, to give women a voice. This was a bold change.

So, for the first time ever, after a series of negotiations that had occurred with the men long before our arrival, women were going to be allowed into the meeting that would happen under the “tree of men.” The compromise was that the women would sit separately but still be included in the circle under the tree. A women would be allowed to speak and she was to give a greeting to the visitors (I was one of the visitors), but she could not stand and speak in front of the men. As long as she sat, she could give a greeting.

On the one hand there's still so much more room for progress in this situation, but what a wonderful, significant step. The women of this village have, for the first time, a voice in the affairs of the community. They may not yet be viewed and treated as fully equal, but they have a place a the table, or under the tree in this case. I hope and pray that in a generation or two the "tree of men" will have a new name, one that reflects the equal status of men and women in the community. That day may still be far off, but this meeting marked a significant step in a positive direction. Traditions and cultural norms can change. It takes time and willingness and often a strong push, but they can change.

You can read the rest of the brief update as well as other interesting stories of life in Africa at Equipping Africa.

Principles of Openness

An aspiring young leader with whom I am acquainted shared this video on her Facebook page recently. The speaker Don Tapscott explores four meanings and principles of openness:

• Collaboration
• Transparency
• Sharing
• Empowerment

Tapscott illustrates these principles with examples primarily from the world of business, but as I watched the video I was thinking about them in regard to the Church in the modern world and in regard to Christian organizations. If Tapscott correctly describes the powerful shift that is occurring right now, how should the Church engage with the “new” world and what will the Church of the coming generations look like? What do we need to change to become more open? How do we increase transparency and sharing? It strikes me that, among other possibilities, we must release hierarchical control and direction and invite open conversation and dialog within the Church.


Of course some might disagree with Tapscott's fundamental arguments. He states: “The arc of history is a positive one and it's toward openness.” Some worldviews and some theologies would not affirm this statement. They do not see the world's trajectory as positive and therefore tend to resist and reject transition as moving away from some earlier ideal state. At best they remain sceptical toward change. Coming from such a perspective, one might fight against increased openness because of fear. Increased openness certainly threatens traditional power structures, so if one's position or worldview depends on the maintenance of those structures, one could be expected to fight against any threat to that power.


What do you think? Is the move to increasing openness inevitable and is it positive? If so, how should we respond within the community of Christ-followers, both in the Church as the global body of Christ and in organizations where Christians come together to work toward kingdom purposes?

The Avengers

I watched the movie The Avengers today with my two children and my father. My children, both teenagers, were dying to see it and would gladly have attended the premiere, had their mean old father allowed them. I had mixed expectations regarding the film. One of the film critics I most admire, Jeffrey Overstreet (with whom I also went to university some years ago), had given it a positive but not ecstatic review. 
But I knew my children wanted to go and even Overstreet did not totally pan the film, so I went expecting to enjoy an exciting action film with limited depth – and that's exactly what I got. As Overstreet describes it: “I enjoy a good superhero movie the way I enjoy a bowl of ice cream, and this is a six-scoop sundae covered in toppings.”


I won't pretend that I didn't enjoy the film. I did. The action doesn't drag. My emotions were suitably aroused and manipulated as these flawed heroes rose to defend humanity from the alien forces of evil. I laughed at the one-liners and other humorous moments. In many ways this is an enjoyable movie and I would not discourage anyone from seeing it. In fact I'd tell you to watch it on the big screen to get the best experience. Your home plasma screen tv, no matter how large, is just not going to give you the same visual experience. (We didn't watch it in 3D because 3D doesn't really do anything for me.)


I do wonder, as I reflect on the movie (which I probably shouldn't bother to do anyway), what message this type of movie sends to our culture. Sure, our superheroes now demonstrate their flaws more openly than I remember them doing when I was young. I guess that's a positive development. But as someone who has begun to wrestle more with the predominance of violence in our culture, I see some reasons for concern in our glorification of it in films such as these. Yes, the violence is (ultimately) directed against the really evil, nasty villain who is leading an army of space aliens to subjugate the earth. Who wouldn't cheer for those fighting against them? But in doing so do we become desensitized to violence in general? Do we begin to see it as the best or only option for resolving conflict? By outsourcing evil to extra-terrestrials, we can avoid the complex issues of what it means for humans to resolve their intra-human conflicts through violence, while exalting as heroes those who resort to violence in the name of a good cause. Is it such a big step from viewing aliens as evil threats to our way of life to viewing those from other cultures or backgrounds that way?


I don't have the answers to these questions. I am not an avowed pacifist and could still see myself resorting to violence in certain situations. Perhaps I would resort to it more easily than I care to admit – maybe I am a bit like Dr. Banner after all. And wouldn't I like to be able to destroy evil with such powerful blows? But would I remember to think about those innocents whom I injure or kill in the process?


Maybe it's best not to analyze a film like this too deeply. And maybe, just maybe, a person can be positively inspired by the superhero mythology. I think of my own children, who love superhero tales far beyond what I did at their age. Perhaps this superhero world can awaken in them a longing for the heroic, a desire to be avengers of justice and truth and to stand on the side of the weak and oppressed. I hope so. I'm reminded of an old song by Steve Taylor – Hero. 




Maybe this love of superheroes can remind us of our need for something beyond our ordinary human nature. Maybe, just maybe it can turn our thoughts to the one true hero, the one who can transform individuals and cultures and civilization – although in a most un-heroic way that renounces violence and embraces humble servanthood. Maybe at its best moments a film like The Avengers can point us to something beyond itself and ourselves.


Or maybe it will just leave us with a sugary headache...

What Love Looks Like in Public

I recently encountered the blog written by Kathy Escobar (listed in my blog list as "the circus in my mind" because for some reason my blog engine will not allow me to change the title). Last week she wrote a great piece on feminism and how people can get hung up on the word rather than understanding the core issue of restoring dignity. I was planning to comment on that post, until I read what she posted yesterday. 


She describes how earlier in her life she transitioned from being a passionate advocate for equal rights and social change into focusing on more conservative issues: "the erosion of morality in America, the horrors of public education, and making sure tax money wasn't spent on things I disagreed with." At some point though she realized:


"I was not hungering and thirsting for justice. I was hungering and thirsting for a false feeling of safety and protection that I felt entitled to as a Christ-follower."


In other words, as she admits, "It was all about me."


What's more, she says, "It didn't satisfy....It was for [sic] more focused on being 'right' than being kind, on distrust than love, on self than others, on division than unity."


Her words and her experience spoke powerfully to me. When I think about the conservative Christian agenda for this country, I see exactly what she speaks of. I see people afraid of losing power and control and in their efforts to hold on to those things acting out of anger, fear, distrust and, yes, selfishness. I do not see the attitude of Christ, who gave up his position, his power, his authority and became a servant to show God's love. He didn't try to defend a status quo, or even to return society to some perceived earlier Golden Era. He demonstrated love to the broken and outcast and he challenged the power and abusive behavior of those in positions of control and authority.


I have to ask myself, as Kathy says of herself, whether my efforts to protect myself, my family and even my culture do not reflect Jesus, but reflect only a particular cultural view. And if I'm honest, the answer must be yes.


"Self-protection, culture-protection will never satisfy, will never quench our thirst."


Read Kathy's article and tell her or me what you think. Are we as Christ-followers in America more focused on pursuing our own self-protection than thirsting for God's justice and righteousness? What does love look like in public, particularly in a multicultural society?

Thoughts on Homeschooling

Recently I had the privilege of sharing with a group of homeschoolers about my experiences living and working overseas. I appreciated their interest and the questions they posed. Our time together passed quickly and could have easily extended another hour or more. A brief interaction with the parent who organized the session stands out to me because it hinted at something that, despite all the positive aspects of homeschooling, troubles me about some members of the homeschooling community.

As I was gathering my things to leave I was talking with this mother—a very friendly, polite, and intelligent woman—about my children's situation now that we are back in the United States. I told her that my daughter currently studies at one of our local public high schools and then commented that she was thriving there and it seemed in fact to be a good environment for her. This seemed to rather surprise this mother. We didn't have time to discuss it further, but from my impression she found it quite difficult to believe that someone could consider a public school to be a good environment for their child.

I do not want to accuse this woman of any particular bias, because we did not have time to really discuss the issue. But her reaction hinted at something I have picked up at times from other homeschooling families: the sense that homeschooling is really the most godly and superior choice for teaching children. Depending on the degree to which this philosophy is held, it may express itself as a complete disdain for anyone who doesn't home school, or it may be expressed more as pity for those who do not home school due to either family constraints or other reasons. Admittedly, not all homeschooling advocates actively demonstrate this philosophy and those who truly disdain non-homeschoolers are probably a quite small minority, but I think that the philosophy does pervade most homeschooling families. They are so convinced of the benefits of their method that they must perceive every other schooling option as inferior in some degree. Perhaps this is only to be expected, given the commitment and effort it takes to home school.

When our children were young, my wife and I did not envision sending them to public school either. In fact my wife often had quite critical things to say of our local public school system. Now as our children are in or prepare to enter high school, imagine our own surprise as we enroll them in the same public school system which earlier we had viewed so critically. We are not unaware of the weaknesses and drawbacks of doing so, but at the same time we see our daughter thriving in her current school environment as she has not thrived in the past several years of her education and we look forward to launching our son into the same system (albeit to a different high school) next fall.

Our children have spent most of their educational lives either in small, Christian school contexts or studying at home in a semi-homeschool environment (not a “true” homeschool environment because we did not choose and implement the curriculum ourselves, although our children did their study at home under our supervision and with our assistance.) To the extent that they had classmates, they were largely from the same or similar cultural backgrounds as they. Although we lived in other cultures and they had some interaction with these cultures, their key educational environments were distinctly evangelical and American.

Now that one of them is in public school (our son is finishing his middle school years in an on-line virtual academy), she is for the first time in her life immersed fully in a secular world. She is surrounded by people who are not like her, people who do not share the same underlying values or beliefs. She has made friends with people who are quite different in their worldviews, not necessarily the people we would have chosen for her had we been the ones making the choice. But we are not and at age 15 we no longer should be, at least not in a directive sense. We do converse with her about her friends and as she interacts with them it has opened opportunities for conversation with her about many issues. She is, for the first time, having to consider the meaning, implication and impact of Christian faith in a decidedly non-Christian context. The outcome is not certain, but my wife and I are convinced that the process is worthwhile.

I see a trend among some evangelicals in America, a trend to condemn the secular culture in which we live and to respond to the increasing secularization by retreating and withdrawing from it. Homeschooling can, in its more negative forms, constitute a part of this trend. It seems that some families feel that we can no longer engage with the culture and our best response is to try to isolate ourselves and try to remain pure and unsullied. I do not think this is a healthy response. Nor do I think it is a realistic and workable response. At some point our lives must cross those of others who are different from us, who do not think and act and believe as we do. If we do not prepare our children for this interaction when they are growing up, when we are most able to influence and teach them, they will instead crash into it later in life. I fear that children who grow up in an isolated conservative Christian environment, even if they are “armed” with apologetic skills to “defend” their faith, will find it difficult to deal with a secular society. But deal with it they must at some point. For this reason, among others that I will not go into here, I am glad that my daughter is in public high school.

I am not opposed to homeschooling. It may be the best option for some and it definitely has advantages. The group I talked with recently were certainly polite, generally engaging and interested in what I had to say. I don't know that the average public school classroom would have been such a receptive environment—though in fact I do not know because I have not had that opportunity. What I would say to homeschool advocates is: recognize that homeschooling is an option, not a mandate. It is not more or less godly than placing our children in public schools, so do not judge those of us who take that route. Recognize also that your child will have to deal with a world in which the majority of people around him or her will not share the same beliefs, values or worldview and consider how you can foster a healthy ability to engage and interact with people from that world. Let us not be guilty of creating a Christian ghetto culture. Salt doesn't do much good if it just sits in a salt shaker, no matter how comfortable and welcoming that may be.

America and American Culture

I recently read these words, written by Eugene Peterson in his book The Pastor, which express very well my own feelings:

"I love being an American. I love this place in which I have been placed--its language, its history, its energy. But I don't love 'the American way,' its culture and values. I don't love the rampant consumerism that treats God as a product to be marketed. I don't love the dehumanizing ways that turn men, women and children into impersonal roles and causes and statistics. I don't love the competitive spirit that treats others as rivals and even as enemies.  The cultural conditions in which I am immersed require, at least for me, a kind of fierce vigilance to guard my vocation from these cultural pollutants so dangerously toxic to persons who want to follow Jesus in the way the he is Jesus."

Whose work?

To what extent, if any, does there exist women's work and men's work? Although I imagine most people understand the question clearly, let me express it differently. Is there work that inherently should be done by women as opposed to work that should be done by men? Or as followers of Jesus Christ are we called to offer a different model, a model of mutual servanthood?

I raise the question because of a recent conversation with a friend of mine. She is a single mom raising a teenage son. She works hard both in and outside the home to provide for herself and her son. But when she asks him to do household tasks, he often responds that these are “women's work” and she should do them. They live in a non-Western culture where gender roles are much more distinct and strong than they are now in the West, so his response is acceptable within the cultural norms, although she has done her best to raise him to a different standard. But his response ignores the fact that his mother by necessity must perform many tasks that would culturally be “men's work” and that she is weary and exhausted, while he spends his time hanging out with his friends. (There are also issues here of respecting one's parents, but that is a different topic.)

When I hear stories like this I become angry. I become angry because of a mindset that continues to perpetuate gender inequality even now in the twenty-first century. I simply do not believe that there are roles, or work, that belong by their very nature to women or men. (I make exception for child-birth, which biologically cannot happen naturally any other way. But even in this the husband can take a more active role than he has traditionally and continues to take in many cultures around the world.) I acknowledge that some work may be more suited to a man or woman due to the nature of the tasks required and the physical characteristics of men and women. But I object to saying that any particular work or role should be done or belongs to men or women. I know many women who are physically stronger than I and therefore more suited to tasks that might be considered “men's work.” At the same time men are also capable of performing work that traditionally has been assigned to women. I don't see any valid basis to argue for an inflexibility delineation of tasks into the categories of men's or women's.

Thankfully in Western cultures we have progressed far in this area (which is not to say that we do not still have room for improvement) But many cultures around the world lag far behind. Unfortunately many people I know who go to work in these cultures do not want to confront this issue because they feel it is a matter of cultural preference. I recognize that it is culturally defined, but I also assert that it can be cultural redefined and offering an alternative example can be a powerful way to begin that process. But we must be willing to risk ridicule and rejection along the way. While living overseas I once was sweeping the sidewalk outside our gate. Our neighbor, another foreigner who had lived longer in that culture, informed me that I was “shaming” my wife by doing work that culturally she was expected to do. Why should it be shameful for a husband to help his wife with the burdens of daily life? And why should I care if others think that way?

I also find it unfortunate that believers often lag behind in this area. Thinking again of people I know who serve cross-culturally, I am disappointed that they do not more actively challenge their local friends and converts in this area. Perhaps it does not seem to them to be a core issue of Christian life. But is that the case? Christ came to transform society, not to simply save souls out of it. What a powerful example we could offer if we as believers modeled not a gender-based division of labor, but rather mutual servanthood. Instead of refusing to do a task because it might bring shame or would be considered the work of the other gender (and most often it seems men have the problem with performing “women's work”), couldn't we offer a powerful model of servanthood by looking for opportunities to serve our brothers or sisters at the point of their need? If a sister (woman) needs help cleaning or cooking, or in any other task, why can we brothers (men) not step up and offer to carry that burden? (Again, women seem to be quicker and more willing to offer this service to men, but the same question could be asked of them.)

The same friend of whom I wrote initially also has a task to help organize a seminar for women. Among other responsibilities she must help with organizational and administrative needs. This comes on top of her many other duties and responsibilities in life. When I heard this, I thought that this would be a great place for the Christian men in the community to step in and offer to help their sisters. Then the women could focus on the direct ministry to women, while the men could offer a powerful example of Christian servanthood by providing for the needs of the women. I expect they would receive a lot of cultural criticism, shame and ridicule for doing so, but at the same time they could offer a powerful testimony of what a life transformed by Jesus Christ looks like.

So let's put aside the outdated concepts of “men's work” and “women's work.” Instead let's adopt an ethic of mutual servanthood and look for opportunities to serve each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. After all, that's the model he gave us.

What to wear

When we lived in Russia I observed that Russians normally have "indoor" and "outdoor" clothing. What I mean by this is something quite different than what we might associate with those terms in North America. For us, outdoor tends to refer to hats, coats, boots and such "extras" that are removed when one enters the house. For Russians, indoor clothing is that which one wears around one's own home. It is usually quite simple, often rather worn from years of use. For women it often includes some type of "housecoat" that goes over the top of whatever else one has on to protect it while doing household chores.


Outdoor clothing, by contrast, is the clothing one wears when in public. These clothes are always maintained in the nicest condition one can afford. It is very important to look nice when one is in public, regardless of one's status. The level of quality will of course vary depending on one's means and position. But nevertheless, one would never dream of going out in public wearing one's ordinary house clothes. Because most Russians cannot afford a large wardrobe, it is most important that these outdoor clothes be maintained as best as possible. For this reason they are taken off as soon as one returns home for an extended period (though not necessarily if one just drops in between errands, for example.)


I have adopted this mentality in many ways. I am often appalled by the clothing that Americans will wear in public. Going to Walmart can almost make my stomach churn. Have we lost all sense of public decency? Do people ever look in the mirror before going out of the house? I fully appreciate the comfort and convenience of dressing casually, but casual doesn't have to mean sloppy, exposing one's less-than-finest points for public viewing. Last week I had to drop the children off for a morning program. I was in a bit of a hurry, so I left on my morning workout clothes, which is basically a pair of casually fleece shorts and a t-shirt. On the way home I stopped at the gas station to fill the car. While pumping my gas, I stopped and looked at myself and realized that I was embarrassed by what I was wearing. I felt like I was much too casually dressed, even though I was only at the gas station. Probably no one else thought anything about my attire. But I sure did.


I am not calling for a return to a stuffy formalism in society. But I do wonder if society wouldn't benefit from restoring to some degree the boundary between the public and the private spheres. The clothing we wear represents a small but significant aspect of that. We don't need to institute "fashion police." But restoring some sense of "decorum" to society wouldn't hurt us. It might even help us move towards restoring the civility to society, the civility whose decline is often lamented these days.

Why are we not appalled?

I was appalled to read this article in our local paper this morning. I'd like to say that I can't believe that Christians would be so willing to support torture, but the reality is that I've heard comments to that effect among various people I know. One blog I read went so far as to say that the methods the US government has used aren't really torture anyway. They are just "uncomfortable things." Would we call them that if they were being used to convince believers in other countries to renounce their faith? Or would it be torture in those cases? I don't think we can have it both ways.

We can apply the ever-popular WWJD to this issue. I don't think it's hard to reach an answer. I cannot imagine that Jesus would ever condone the abuse of another human being. I understand the desire to protect ourselves and our loved ones. But that does not justify tormenting other humans to extract potentially useful information. Our safety and security is not the highest priority. Living Christlike lives before the nations is. I think many in the American church have misplaced their priorities. We value our lives and our way of life more than our God. Could God say of us what is said to John of the brothers and sisters who have gone before us, that "they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death"? (Rev. 12:11) I would rather go to the death than to stain the name of Christ by condoning immoral, unjust behavior including torture.

Some might say, "But if we do not oppose evil it will overcome us and there will be no opportunity to be God's witnesses." I'm not saying we should not oppose evil. I am saying that we cannot use evil to oppose evil because then we can no longer offer a better example. We lose the moral high ground the minute we adopt immoral methods. Notice what precedes the words I just cited from Revelation 12:11. It says: "They overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony." They didn't do it through force of arms. They didn't do it by resorting to the evil methods of their enemies. They did it through their testimony to the saving grace of Jesus Christ. It's pretty hard to communicate the message of Christ's love when you're torturing someone, isn't it?

I think that the Christians in the United States should be the first ones calling on our government to renounce torture. We should be setting the example and leading the charge, and not the charge to put suspects to the rack in order that we might feel safe and secure. As the article I mentioned earlier reminds us, we've dropped the ball too many times in the past. Let's not drop it again this time.

Enough Already

I'm just about done with Christian radio. They've pushed me to my limit and I'm not sure I can take it anymore.

We have two Christian stations in Tucson: KFLT which is part of the Family Life radio network (in fact they have their headquarters here) and KLOVE, part of the national network. Many would consider our town to be blessed to have two full-power, round-the-clock stations like that--though you'd be amazed how similar the music on the two is. There have been times I've switched from one to the other only to hear the same song. But that's not what has me fed up.

I'm all for making the Gospel relevant to the modern world. The challenge is holding that fine line between making the Gospel relevant and appealing to the culture and simply buying into and becoming part of the culture. I fear that we've done the latter in far too many ways and what I'm hearing on the radio isn't encouraging me any.

What has me fed up so much? I'm deeply bothered by the contests and promotions they are running. On KLOVE in the last couple weeks I've been hearing about their contest to win a $6,000 home entertainment center (including setting it up for you!) as well as their opportunity to win a trip to New York City, including a $500 shopping spree at Macy's. What exactly is the point of either of these and what does it have to do with walking with Christ? How is either of these going to make me a better disciple? Given all the needs and opportunities in the world today, couldn't we as believers come up with something better to offer? How about a contest in which the winner would travel to visit a Compassion project in Haiti and deliver several thousands of dollars in supplies? That would be an experience worth the time and expense, one that would benefit both the contest winner and those who could really use some help. But no, we've become like the world and would rather compete for things that we want but don't necessarily need.

I won't even go into the issue that this is all being promoted by a commercial-free, listener supported radio station. Why exactly should I contribute money to enable these promotions? Someone will say that it's all about getting people interested in listening so that they can hear the Gospel message. Is that what it's all about? Or have we deceived ourselves. It's easy to cross that boundary and not realize it.

In some ways I do really appreciate Christian radio. It is nice to listen to something that is, as they advertize themselves, positive and encouraging. I just wish they didn't feel that they have to imitate the world around them so completely. And I wish they'd put a little more variety in their music, but that's another issue. I may not stop listening, because the other options out there aren't so great either. Or maybe I'll just turn the radio off and enjoy some conversation with my Father...

Roles

I found myself on my hands and knees yesterday morning scrubbing the kitchen floor following a small spill of sticky mandarin juice as the kids packed their lunches. This prompted me to think about the whole idea of men’s and women’s roles in society. Some people would say that these roles are quite distinct, while others would say there aren’t really any distinct roles for men and women. Rather it’s all just culturally based. I fall somewhere in the middle. I do think God made men and women different and there are certain things that we each seem to do better in general. But I think we must be careful about prescribing any role for either men or women, because God also makes each one of us unique and our gifts and abilities are not determined by our gender.

Here in the West we have moved a long way toward eliminating the prescription of certain roles as “men’s” or “women’s” and I think that overall this is a good thing. I’m not saying that there is perfect equality, but compared to many other cultures men and women here are far more balanced in their roles. I imagine that most American women are happy to have husbands who actively help with household chores. (Ladies, correct me if I’m wrong.) My wife certainly doesn’t object when I scrub the floor as I did this morning, or when I clean the bathroom or wash the dishes. Are there women out there who would object to this or see it as somehow “unmasculine?” But I’ve lived in other cultures where the men still would never dream of demeaning themselves to do such labor. Interestingly enough, in those cultures I see that most of the time women work far harder, often working outside of the home during the day, then returning home and doing all the housework as well. One day I was sweeping the walk in front of our gate when our neighbor, another American living there, came out and informed me that I was shaming my wife before the neighbors. Apparently only women should sweep around the house and my doing so made both myself and my wife look bad. In other situations I’ve heard of, people must haul water some distant from a well, lake or river. The full pails are heavy, but this too is always women’s work. When the husband of a foreign family living in the community carried water for the family they received a lot of criticism for this.

In such situations I really struggle with my response. I desire to serve my wife and my family by helping around the house. I believe that this is what a godly man does. But what should I do when my desire conflicts with the cultural understanding of what a man should be like? I personally try to discern in each situation what is best, but I hope I err on the side of being a servant rather than being a “real man.” I usually cannot directly challenge the cultural norms. But I believe I can offer a different model for them to consider and, when the situation allows, defend that model as a godly one. I am not claiming that our Western model is inherently better or more godly. But in terms of the balance between roles, I think that the model of a man who is a servant to others is certainly preferable and consistent with God’s teaching.