2012 in Review - Part 2

In this past year I awakened in a meaningful way to the need to change the way we live. Our very lifestyle is poisoning ourselves and destroying our environment. As disciples of the Creator God, we must adopt a different mentality toward the created world. We must stop treating it as disposable, exploiting it for our personal pleasures without concern for the rest of the people with whom we share the planet, nor the others who will come after us. This also ties into the issue of equality, since our wealth and privilege as Americans thrives on and perpetuates economic inequality. I continue to be challenged to live more sustainably and justly.

Are we poisoning ourselves? (3/28)

What's our responsibility? (3/28)

Why aren't GMO products labeled? (7/14)

The poor will always be with us (10/21)

Equality is a moral issue (12/6)

How do you understand the relationship between faith and the environment? What does sustainable living look like?

Half the Church

A couple years ago I read the profoundly worldview-changing book Half the Sky by Sheryl WuDunn and Nicholas D. Kristof. That book opened my eyes to the huge challenges, obstacles and burdens the women of our world face and moved me to action on their behalf. As I have written previously, I recognized that Kristof and WuDunn were right on target with their statement:

We believe that in this century the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality in the developing world.

I also came to realize that a similar statement could be made about women within the Church. I believe that the paramount issue in this century within the Church will also be the struggle for gender equality. So when I saw Carolyn Custis James' new book Half the Church, I knew I had to read it. I had already read her book The Gospel of Ruth and was moved by her examination of that well-known story. Half the Church was just as powerful.

In Half the Church James makes a concise and powerful argument for God's global vision for women. This vision stems from the very beginning of creation, when God created men and women in the divine image.

So God created humankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

James would insist that we not skip quickly over these words lest we fail to recognize the profound statement being made here. Both men and women are divine image-bearers. Women are not an afterthought. James writes:

“He gives both male and female the exact same identity – to be his image bearers. He gives both the exact same responsibilities when he entrusts all of creation to his image bearers, calling them to be fruitful and multiply and to rule and subdue the whole earth.”

From this basis James examines Scripture and builds a strong case for not only the equality of men and women, but for the fact the without both genders the Church cannot fulfill the mission of God. Women weren't created to be the “helpmeets” of men. Women were created to bear the image of God alongside men, so that together we can accomplish God's purposes. She makes the point more than once that by placing women in a subordinate position, the Church has crippled its own ability to bear the divine image. The Church is trying to carry out its mission with only half of its potential strength. By failing to appreciate and live in accord with the fundamental nature of creation – in which men and women both bear equally the divine image – the Church has sold the Gospel of Jesus Christ short.

“At the heart of this discussion is the very real question of whether the gospel's message for women is merely a kinder, gentler version of the world's message. Are we only dealing with a sliding scale, where our beliefs move women to a safer, more acceptable zone of human value, or does Jesus bulldoze that system and reconstruct in its place a radically different gospel way of valuing women?”

I find it profoundly tragic that this book needs to be written. The truth that James argues should be inherently apparent and practiced throughout God's Church. Sadly this is not the case and has not been throughout the Church's history. Although Western culture has made significant strides in affirming the value of women, much of the Western Church still lags far behind. For this reason James' book is necessary. Although she writes it for women, I think it has great value for and needs to be read by men as well. We need to have our thinking about women in the world and particularly in the Church radically transformed. James has laid out a good fundamental argument to help stimulate that transformation. I would love to see this book used in mixed small groups so that God's children, men and women together, could talk about these important issues and together initiate changes that will unleash the half of the church that currently finds themselves restricted, hindered and undervalued.

The Gay Agenda

In the media, particularly the conservative and Christian media, we often hear criticism of the “gay agenda” and the “gay lifestyle.” What exactly are these and should we really be afraid of them? In this video I came across recently LZ Granderson takes a humorous, thought-provoking look at these two phrases and what they look like in reality. 






Not so long ago I would have been among those who spoke out against the threat of the “gay agenda” and decried the “gay lifestyle.” As my views transition, I see that my response arose from my fear of the unknown. I painted the homosexual community with a broad brush so that I could demonize (or “other”) and thus disregard them. It's much easier to ignore, reject, dehumanize or mistreat a group of people if you can simply lump them all into a category, paste a label on it and then associate that label with all sorts of negative and undesirable connections. So the “gay agenda” obviously seeks to overthrow all that is good and decent in American culture. The “gay lifestyle” obviously promotes debauchery of kinds that are scarcely imaginable (although Hollywood seems to try harder every year to make sure we can in fact imagine it).


This video pointed out clearly one thing that I have come to understand. To the extent that one can speak of a “gay agenda,” it is simply that those in the GLBT community deserve equal treatment before the law. Whether I agree with their lifestyle or not is irrelevant. Our constitution affirms the equality of people. Unfortunately it took us 100 years to begin to apply that to black people – a process still going on – and longer than that for women, which is also still an on-going process. What about GLBT people should exclude them from this same equality? Do they really threaten my identity, my lifestyle or my culture that seriously that they should not be treated equally? I don't think so. It is probably an overused comparison, although it has been and is reality in other parts of the world, but what if those who hold power should decide someday that being a Christian was aberrant and Christians should not receive equal treatment under the law? We can't ask for that which we are not willing to extend to others.


What do you think after watching this video? What was your perception of the “gay lifestyle” and the “gay agenda” prior to and after watching this?

Reflections of a Flawed Egalitarian

Rachel Held Evans has devoted this week to a discussion of what it means to be egalitarian. If you haven't checked out her posts so far, I strongly encourage you to do so. You won't be disappointed. Rachel conducts her conversations with passion blended with humility and openness, so that all can join in whether they agree with her point of view or not.

As she has invited others to join in this conversation through their own blogs and tweets, I want to take today to share some reflections on this topic from my own 20+ years of marriage. My wife and I both come from traditional patriarchal families. Neither of our fathers ruled as tyrants, but in both of our families it was clear that dad was ultimately in charge. Our mothers could make decisions within certain parameters, but in the end, dad had the final say. This was also true within our church backgrounds, where male headship within the home and church was assumed as much as it was actively proclaimed.


Yet from the time we married, we have sought to live differently, more in keeping with an egalitarian model. This has, naturally, expressed itself in very practical ways, such as the division of household tasks. Despite my upbringing I did not enter marriage assuming that all housework involving cooking, cleaning, care of the kids and such would naturally be my wife's work. I never saw that as fair or appropriate. Although I won't say I've been perfect in this area, I think we have had a good balance overall throughout our years together. However, we have also never considered equality in these areas to be a question of dividing the work 50/50. We have tried for a healthy balance, and certain tasks generally fall to one or the other of us, but we have also sought to serve one another, stepping in to do whatever is necessary at the given moment. For example, my wife normally does the cooking as she is a better cook than I. But I don't see this as only her role, and some evenings I will cook if I see that she is tired, or she has something else that she needs to do. I like to think that this arrangement wouldn't look all that different if we were a traditional patriarchal family, because I hope that most men of my generation or younger would recognize by now that when it comes to the home, you can't say that certain tasks are “women's work” and others are “men's work.” I am probably too optimistic in this regard, but I don't view the division of household labor as the defining element of being egalitarian.


We have also sought to make key decisions together. When we chose to move to Arizona so I could attend graduate school, we made the decision together, even though my education was the motivating factor. I would not have forced her to go had she been opposed. Later, when we felt led to join an international ministry and move overseas, we made the decision together and as we moved to various locations and took on various roles, we did so in concert. At one point my wife agreed to not make a major move because I did not feel peace about it. A couple years later I felt peace about it and God ended up redirecting both of us to a third option that we had not previously considered. Had I forced my way upon her at any point in this journey it would have been detrimental to our relationship, our ministry and our family. 


Despite these positive egalitarian traits in our relationship, I'm growing in my awareness of areas in which I have operated from my background paradigm of male leadership rather than from a conscious effort to practice equality. I have often made decisions based on my own goals and plans, rather than seeking consensus with my wife. I have pursued my own development while not supporting hers as I ought. I have not invited and included her in decision-making within our family as much as I could have. I see that I have often clung to my limited power and control, fearful of sharing it because that might mean that I have to do things I don't prefer to do. It might (does!) mean that I have to acknowledge that I don't always know what's best. I don't always have the right answer. I'm not superman. 


I am learning, as I let go and invite my wife into greater equality, that it is immensely liberating. I don't have to always have the answer. I don't have to always be right. Together we can benefit from the wisdom, insight and talents we both bring to the relationship. Together we can accept responsibility for our mutual decisions, not feeling the need to defend ourselves or judge the other if a decision does not turn out as we had hoped. 


To borrow the words Rachel's husband Dan wrote yesterday: My relationship with my wife is not a hierarchy, it's a partnership. I don't want a weak partner who defers to me for the final word. I want a strong, confident, stable partner who will walk side-by-side with me mutually supporting one another as our roles change continually throughout our marriage. I'm thankful that I have such a partner and that she has patiently walked with me even when I have not fully lived up to the equality I so strongly profess.

Why We Remain Silent -- and Shouldn't

My wife recently called my attention to this insightful article, in which the Egyptian-American author speaks out about the war against women in the Middle East. The article is worth the time it takes to read it, so take a moment and do so now before continuing to read my thoughts on it.

Mona Eltahawy raises a strong and clear voice against the abuse and oppression of women in the Middle East. Why, she asks, does the world – do Arab women themselves – tolerate this kind of abuse. She mentions a key reason: fear of cultural or religious offense.

"Name me an Arab country, and I'll recite a litany of abuses fueled by a toxic mix of culture and religion that few seem willing or able to disentangle lest they blaspheme or offend."

The Western world has become afraid of criticizing Islam because of the strongly negative reaction any such criticism brings, up to and including riots and death threats. What's more, we don't want to push any of these governments to allow change within their societies because that might destablize them, which would threaten our oil supply. We're afraid of the economic impact that standing up for women would have on our own lifestyle.

Eltahawy also mentions cultural relativism, the idea that each culture has its own values and outsiders are wrong to seek change in those values. Interestingly, I think we use this argument when it suits us to not intervene, because in fact human society has recognized that certain values supercede culture. For example, although slavery is still tolerated in certain societies, it is considered reprehensible and unallowable globally and no one discounts those who advocate against and work to end modern slavery. But when it comes to the rights and dignity of women, we fall into silence and claims of cultural relativism.

It disturbs me that we as a culture continue to remain silent on these abuses that half the human population faces. In fact it angers me. But I am angered still more by the silence of those who call themselves by the name of Jesus. We who should be advocates of human dignity, of liberation and redemption, continue to allow the oppression and abuse of our sisters. We are just as guilty if not more so of accepting the arguments of cultural relativism, although we claim to be ambassadors of a Kingdom that supercedes the boundaries of any single culture. Where are the disciples of Christ standing up both in the West and in the Arab lands for the dignity of women? Where are the followers of Jesus who actively advocate for the equality of our sisters?

I think that we fail to do this, at least to the level that we could and should, because we don't truly believe in that equality ourselves. We are not going to advocate for the dignity of women, we are not going to encourage our Arab and other Muslim-background brothers to place women in positions of leadership and responsibility when we ourselves are unwilling to do so in our own churches. I have seen young fellowships of Jesus-followers in Muslim cultures and in most cases I see the perpetuation of cultural systems of oppression, marginalization and exclusion. I see old wine in new wineskins. I see sisters whose dignity continues to be trodden upon by their supposed brothers-in-Christ, who unfortunately continue to see the women in their communities with the same eyes they always have. Yes, change takes time. But it won't happen if we are not modeling and advocating for it ourselves. I have felt and argued for some time that if all we offer to Muslim women is a change in which rules they have to follow, then they might as well stay in their former situations. If the message of the Gospel does not offer true freedom and restoration of their full dignity as children of God, equal to the men around them, then we really have very little to offer them.

I'm thankful for the exceptions I've seen to this pattern, but unfortunately they remain just that – exceptions. Perhaps I'm dreaming, since in so many of our churches here in the US we continue to put our sisters in a second-class position. But I believe we can change our own attitudes, beliefs and practices. And I believe that we should not be silent about the situation of women in the Arab world, and everywhere that they face the destruction of their dignity in any form.

What is to be done, asks Eltahawy. I affirm her strong statement:

"First we stop pretending. Call out the hate for what it is. Resist cultural relativism and know that in countries undergoing revolutions and uprisings, women will remain the cheapest bargaining chips. You – the outside world – will be told that it's 'our' culture and 'religion' to do X, Y, or Z to women. Understand that whoever deemed it as such was never a woman.”

Breaking Down Barriers

In the book of Galatians we read:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Echoing this powerful statement, Kathy Escobar in her book Down We Go quotes her friend Ken Loyd as saying:

“There's no us and them; there's only us.”

Kathy and her friend emphasize that the Kingdom of God doesn't divide between people. This Kingdom doesn't have a privileged elite and the less-privileged masses. It doesn't respect differences between races, ethnicities, economic levels or genders. Nonetheless, she argues, we perpetuate such divisions in our culture and, unfortunately, in our churches.

“We make friends and build relationships with people who have similar backgrounds, educations, passions and theologies. Individuals and groups with resources and power very rarely mix with people without them, and we see this perpetuated in class systems, racial divides, and the deep chasms between groups we see in many neighborhoods.”

We create and maintain these divisions because they give us a sense of security, comfort and identity. Obviously it is much easier to relate to people who are like me than to people who are unlike me. Also, by focusing on those who are most like me, I can avoid being confronted by unpleasant realities or unwelcome ideas, things that disrupt my settled world. I can label the outsider and by so doing quickly dismiss her or him. Dianna Anderson recently wrote this insightful piece on othering, the process by which we label those who are different than us so that we don't have to encounter and deal with them as individuals and real people. As she says:

“We Other the people we disagree with – when we make them, in our minds, into something so unlike ourselves that we strip them of their humanity and dignity.”

In order to avoid othering, to destroy the walls and divisions we build to separate ourselves from others, Kathy suggests that we must first get in touch with our own spiritual poverty. “The barriers exist because we're afraid to acknowledge our pain,” she states. By building barriers and excluding others we believe we can protect ourselves. We can put ourselves in a superior position as the ones who have it together, who can offer help, assistance or advice to others, to those poor unfortunate “others” who haven't got what the people in our group have. If only they would be like us, then they'd be okay (and society would be a better place.)

Embracing our spiritual poverty, Kathy tells us, opens us to real relationships.

“When we give up self-protection we allow ourselves to feel and care. We begin to weep with others and weep for ourselves. We become acutely aware of the human struggle not only in others' lives but also our own. We let go of quick fixes and simple solutions and embrace the long, hard journey of relationship with other people where we cry together, celebrate together, and feel each other's pain.”

Breaking down the barriers requires us also to give up our positions of privilege and control. If we include those whom we have excluded and treat them as equals with full human dignity, we must listen to their input, value their contributions and allow them to speak into our lives as well. I want to come back to this in a future post and look at a paradigm shift Kathy proposes in how we build relationships across boundaries that have often divided people.

Although I embrace fully this vision of a community in which us versus them has become just us, I must admit that it also makes me incredibly uncomfortable. For example, an organization to which I belong is currently undergoing a significant restructuring. As part of this process the leaders of the organization proposed to eliminate the category of “member.” I, along with many others, responded quite negatively to this proposal. We didn't want to open the doors to just anyone who might want to become affiliated with our organization. We didn't want to risk losing control. As an organization we are still wrestling with this proposal, its implications and how we might become more inclusive without losing our organizational distinctives. As I think of what Kathy has written, I'm re-evaluating my perspective on this question. I'm asking myself why I feel it is so important to maintain a boundary between members and non-members. At the same time I'm asking myself whether Kathy's vision is realistic in this fallen world. I like the idea as a concept, but when I start thinking of what it might look like in practice I become much less bold. As Kathy suggests, I am afraid to make myself vulnerable and to surrender my sense of security and control.

I'm trying to take steps in this direction. I'm trying to listen to voices that I previously would have ignored or even mocked. I'm trying to not other those I disagree with, although I see how easily and often I do it. I'm looking for opportunities to connect with those who can offer me new horizons and perspectives and, just maybe, play a role in transforming me. I'm tentatively stepping outside of my safe and comfortable Christian bubble and encountering the world at large. It's exciting but scary at the same time.

How have you created or perpetuated divisions in your community, society and in the Church? What steps have you taken or can you take to remove those barriers? How does the prospect of this make you feel?

The Paramount Moral Challenge

This week I finished reading an excellent, thought-provoking book. Entitled Half the Sky by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn (who are husband and wife), the book examines the injustices and inequality women around the world face simply because they are women. The authors present a lot of data but illustrate their arguments particularly effectively through the personal stories they tell of women they have met in their global work. They do not concern themselves with issues like equality in sports in America or the "glass ceiling" in the western corporate world. They concern themselves with the life and death issues that women and girls in the majority of the world face, issues like being sold into sexual slavery, dying in childbirth, being killed to protect so-called family honor and having the opportunity to gain a basic education. In the introductory chapter they summarize their conviction:

We believe that in this century the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality in the developing world.

After reading their book I would wholeheartedly agree with this statement. These are not simply "women's issues," as they are often regarded. They are human rights issues that should concern us all because God created women and endowed them with value just as great as men. The authors are not inherently anti-male. In fact they readily acknowledge that much of the injustice and mistreatment of women comes at the hands of other women. At the same time they point out that most of the power structures in the world have been dominated by men and therefore issues that affect women have tended to receive minor attention. Issues affecting poor women in developing countries suffer this neglect in particular. As the authors write:

Maternal health generally gets minimal attention because those who die or suffer injuries overwhelmingly start with three strikes against them: They are female, they are poor, and they are rural.

As I read this book I felt at times deeply saddened and at other times very angry that we allow these moral failures to persist. I believe that God's people should be at the forefront of this struggle for women's equality, not lagging behind. I do acknowledge, as do the authors, that believers are actively engaged in promoting women's welfare on many fronts. But I wonder if for some believers theology subtly affects their view of women, blaming them for the fall and therefore ascribing to them lesser value. Or maybe people are just not aware of the situation that women and girls in the developing world face and therefore do not realize the great need for changing that situation. Reading this book will certainly change that. Sometimes our strong support for one area, such as standing against abortion, inadvertently causes us to oppose activities that actually provide great assistance to women and in the end actually reduce the likelihood of them seeking abortions. The issues are complex, far more so than they often appear to us in our western cocoons.

Even prior to reading this book I felt a strong desire to do what we as a family can to promote the equality and empowerment of women. But I didn't have a clear idea what we could do, other than the ways we are already engaged in supporting some of the women we know here and our support of two girls through Compassion International. The authors helped me by presenting a list in the appendix of organizations that work to protect and promote women and girls. Even if I can't travel to Africa, Asia or other area, I can direct some of my giving specifically to support these organizations. Some sites even allow you to make direct contributions to specific women or projects. Two of these are kiva.org and globalgiving.org. Kiva allows you to loan money to specific women who are seeking to develop their businesses. The loans are distributed through various local organizations. In most cases the money is repaid to you after a period of time, allowing you to reinvest it in another woman or project. (Currently you receive no interest on your loan, but because it is a loan you cannot claim it as a charitable contribution.) Globalgiving allows you to donate to a wide range of projects including small business development, education and healthcare. Contributions through Globalgiving are tax-deductible in the United States.

These days we hear a lot about the need to fight against terrorism. Some have made this the most pressing issue of the century. I would agree with the authors of Half the Sky that fighting for the education, health and equality of women is actually more pressing and will in the long run prove more effective against terrorism than dropping bombs and waging military campaigns, even if at times those too may be necessary. I hope that this book will stimulate the growth of the currently small movement to change the situation of women and girls around the world. I for one am fully behind it.