My Like-Dislike Relationship with American Football

 I have a like-dislike relationship with football these days (by which I mean American football). I won't call it a love-hate relationship because it's not that strong. I'm not passionate enough about football to feel that strongly one way or the other. I don't schedule my weekend around the football games I want to watch (although I have been known to schedule based on when a preferred soccer match will be on!) and I don't feel particularly heartbroken if I miss a game by one of the teams I support. However, I do enjoy sitting down on Sunday afternoon and watching a game, even if only absentmindedly while I read the paper or take an on-and-off nap. If I miss a game I do go online to see if my teams won or lost. I used to be much worse and the outcome of the weekend's games often affected my mood going into Monday morning. Given that my team at the time was the Kansas City Chiefs, that made for many a Monday with low spirits. These days I feel disappointed when my favorite teams lose, but I get on with life because I know there are far more important and interesting things in the world.

I am questioning more and more whether I can and should continue to support this sport, even in my relatively passive manner. Several issues prompt my doubt. The very nature of football promotes aggression and violence, albeit in a somewhat controlled manner. I don't object to the competitive nature of the sport. All sports are competitive in some degree. Someone wins and someone loses and within reason that's acceptable. But football isn't just about winning and losing. It's about the physical contact, the aggressive hits and the hard tackles. The fans want this kind of thing. Some have likened it to the Roman gladiatorial games. I don't know that it is quite that extreme, but the fans certainly experience some measure of catharsis watching the spectacle of crashing bodies on the field below (or the screen at home). We take part vicariously in the violence and in doing so, passively or actively celebrate and promote it. Do I really want to support an activity so fundamentally connected with aggression? I'm not sure I do anymore. I'm also not sure what it says about us and our society that we glory in this sport.

Source: http://postgradproblems.com/are-you-ready-for-some-college-football/

Even as we are enjoying the physical clash taking place on the field, those engaging in it are suffering bodily harm that in many cases will damage them for life. The indications that regular physical contact of this nature can result in long-term brain trauma seems fairly strong, strong enough that recently the NFL reached a settlement with a group of former players over the issue (without actually admitting any responsibility, conveniently). Some former players face debilitating brain injuries and some as a result have been driven to suicide. My enjoyment of their sport doesn't make me culpable in their injuries. Ultimately they are responsible for their choice to play and continue playing. But when I choose to watch, I help create the market that makes this sport financially rewarding and therefore help to perpetuate it. I realize that if I stop watching, the game will continue to be played, but my conscience need not bear the burden of supporting an activity that causes lasting harm to those who participate actively in it.

In addition to the issues related to violence and the physical harm the game brings, I am also disturbed by the sexism latent not only in the game itself but in the surrounding culture. I recognize that many women enjoy football and, in perhaps a paradoxical manner, am glad they do. Football shouldn't be the domain of only men as long as it continues to be played. Yet football (and related sports such as rugby) remains more male oriented than perhaps any other major sport. In other sports we see women's leagues being formed and growing. Although their popularity is not yet anywhere near that of the corresponding men's sport, we now have professional women's basketball and soccer. Women can play softball (although I fail to understand why they can't just play baseball), tennis, golf and even hockey. But women playing football remains a rare exception. On the one hand I would commend women for having the intelligence to avoid involvement in a sport that will, ultimately, harm them physically. At the same time the feminist in me revolts at the exclusion of women from this highly popular sport. And no, I don't count the lingerie football league as a true women's alternative. In fact, it's just another indicator of the underlying sexism in the sport. The only place we regularly find women involved in football at any level is on the sideline as cheerleaders. Without wanting to insult cheerleading, which can be a legitimate activity for both men and women (the fact that no NFL team I am aware of has male cheerleaders should tell us something), I find this very degrading to women. It insults me as a feminist and as a sports fan.

Source: http://postgradproblems.com/are-you-ready-for-some-college-football/

When you combine the exclusion of women from the game with the sexist attitudes that predominate in the advertising that fuels the football industry, it becomes apparent how women are viewed by a large portion of the football-watching world. Beer commercials, which provide a significant portion of sports revenue (I have no numbers on how much) regularly appall me with their blatant sexism (which, unfortunately, is not limited to commercials aired during football games, but that's a different topic.) As I said earlier, I fully affirm the right of women not only to watch but to play football. But I wonder why any woman wants to watch a sport that so fully excludes her from anything but observing and often reduces her to a sex-object to sell the sport and related products.

Finally, I question whether I want to support a sport that has come to pervert many educational institutions through corruption and scandal. I started reading today the article published by Sports Illustrated this week on the program at Oklahoma State University. I haven't even finished the article yet and already I am appalled. I would say I'm shocked, except that we have heard similar stories far too often in the past few years. It seems like every season we hear of another major university that, in the pursuit of football glory, has allowed and even fostered systems that promote winning over all else. Even programs that remain within the generous boundaries of NCAA rules still cause me to cringe when I read of the exorbitant amounts of money poured into them, even while academic programs at many universities struggle to find adequate funding. (I recognize that many athletic departments are effectively supported by their football program, but this does not necessarily make it right that so much money goes into football.) When we put so much significance on the success of a school's football program, we should not be surprised when rules are bent, ignored and broken in order to achieve that success. Do I want to support this system?

Yet even after saying all this I admit that I still enjoy a good football game. I still want to cheer for my alma-mater to beat the in-state and conference foes. In fact, somewhat ironically, I will be attending my first college football game this weekend for my father's birthday. I'm conflicted. I have a like-dislike relationship with this sport. My response at present will be to wean myself from watching football. I won't refuse to watch it if it's on, but I want to choose not to watch it when I have control of the remote. That won't be easy. It has become a sort of default behavior for me on Sunday afternoon over the years. But surely I can find better ways to invest my Sabbath day? I won't condemn or judge those who choose to watch football and cheer for their favorite teams, but I would encourage those of us who do to stop and think about what our support of this sport says about ourselves and our culture.

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?

Grieving Victims of Violence

I am grieving this week for a young woman I never met. I have been grieving for her since I first heard the story of her brutal rape at the hands of several men on December 16 and subsequent death from her injuries at the end of the year. I grieve because no person should endure the abuse that she received. I grieve because her life was just as precious to God as any other human and her loss diminishes all of us, to recall the words of John Donne. When I think of her I see all the women I have the privilege of knowing and shudder at the thought that any of them should face what she did.

I grieve as well because her death does not stand as an isolated act. Although her abuse was particularly awful in its brutality, rape has been and remains a common occurrence in India. Perhaps this heinous crime will spur changes in Indian society, but some of the comments I have read make me doubt this. These comments sound all too familiar, placing the blame on women for their appearance or behaviour, effectively making the victim responsible for her own abuse. It seems that men in India, at least many of them, have a very difficult time accepting women as their equals. Feeling threatened by women in the public space, they shame them, demean them, abuse them, rape them and seek to exert control over them to maintain their superior position in the culture. I recognize that not all men in India are this way, but from the many stories that have come out of India in light of this crime, these characteristics seem to provide an accurate profile of the culture as a whole.

I grieve not only because of the culture of violence toward women that we find in India. I grieve also because this same culture of violence exists in my own country. We in America may feel some sense of cultural superiority to India, but we shouldn't, because women face similar threats of violence, rape, abuse and even death at the hands of men here in the United States as well. We are not innocent. We are not better than they are. In fact we are just as guilty as India of excusing violent behavior by men. As I wrote recently, we falsely continue to affirm this as part of masculinity. We men (and women, who unfortunately sometimes perpetuate the same lies and myths about rape victims as men) need to stand against violence, particularly against women. We need to affirm that being a “real” man doesn't require asserting power and control over women. Quite the opposite. We need to demonstrate by word and deed that men are fully men when they embrace gentleness, humility and kindness and surrender power and control. Instead of feeling threatened by the equality of women, we need to embrace and affirm it, for in affirming their full dignity and equality we benefit all of society, including ourselves.

We also need to leave behind false myths and ideas that place the blame for rape and abuse on women because of their appearance or behaviour. Men who rape bear the responsibility for their behaviour, not their victims. Unfortunately the modesty myth so frequently perpetuated in Christian circles does nothing to reduce or eliminate this false blaming. Men and women in the church need to take the lead in defending the victims of violence and abuse instead of turning the blame back on them. We, the people of God, should be the trendsetters against violence in any form. I grieve that we often lag far behind or, worse still, perpetuate false gender stereotypes along with modesty and purity myths. By doing so we are complicit in the culture of rape and violence that exists in this country and around the world.

I hope that this young woman's death will bring change to Indian society. I hope it does not stop with India though, but can be a catalyst to further the reduction and eventual elimination of violence against women in every country. We must speak out. We must stand against violence toward women. We must adopt a new view of manhood that affirms the full equality and dignity of women. We cannot remain complicit in the abuse, mistreatment, rape and other forms of violence against women.

Masculinity and Violence

In light of the recent tragedy in Connecticut we have seen the usual heated discussion about gun control flare up again. We've also seen some conversation about mental health issues. We need to talk about both of these topics and I certainly have my own thoughts on each of them. But we've seen very little conversation about another key issue: the role of violence in our society and how we socialize ourselves, especially boys, in such a way that violence becomes a natural, even expected, expression of masculinity.

Our culture promotes the idea that being a man means taking charge, getting what you want, exerting power and control. We see this in movies and on TV. I was just at the movie theater and was appalled though not surprised by the predominance of weapons and violence – largely led by men – in current and upcoming films. We see it particularly in video games, where it combines with blatantly misogynistic memes that denigrate and degrade women. (I'm looking forward to Anita Sarkeesian's video on this subject.) We tacitly and even explicitly affirm it in the messages we give to our boys and young men. We condone violence as a solution to problems and yet are surprised when people act violently outside of the ways we deem “acceptable.” As tragic as the killings in Connecticut are, they are only an extreme example of the fact that American culture has embraced and celebrates violence. Among nations with similar socio-economic levels, our country has one of if not the highest level of murder, the majority of which are carried out by men. Domestic violence plagues our society. Men abuse, mistreat and denigrate women and yet we all-too-quickly excuse such immoral behavior saying, “Boys will be boys.” Even worse, we turn the blame back onto the very victims of this abuse and violence, saying that they should have done X differently in order to not stimulate or provoke men. Our concept of masculinity and our devotion to inaccurate and outdated gender stereotypes contributes to the culture of violence in which we live.

Masculinity in our society has come to be defined largely as a rejection of anything deemed “effiminate.” This includes any expression of empathy, gentleness and compassion. We teach boys that physical weakness correlates to moral weakness and inferiority. Boys understand from an early age that the most physically attractive and strong boys are the most respected. Our sports culture reaffirms this not only during school years but into adulthood as well. We affirm certain colors, clothing, and behavioral traits as “feminine,” and we mock and deride any man or boy who should express a liking for or interest in them, once again reinforcing gender stereotypes that have no real basis.

We also train boys that they should expect to be in charge of their world. This has a reasonable side in so far as it promotes personal responsibility for our choices and actions. But in our society we go well beyond that and promote the idea that men are natural leaders while women are naturally passive followers. Unfortunately we hear this particularly in our churches, where we affirm the value of women as long as they remain in their “proper” spheres of activity and influence. But when a young man finds that he cannot control his environment or those around him, we express surprise that he lashes out in violence, seeking to destroy or harm that which he cannot control.

We need to change our whole perception of what it means to be a real man. We must teach our boys and men that expressing themselves through violence is not a healthy outlet, nor does it make them more “manly.” We should encourage them to embrace the value of empathy, gentleness and compassion. We must stop thinking of and referring to these qualities as “feminine” because this gender-labeling only promotes a false understanding of what manhood is all about, as well as continuing to denigrate anything associated with women as inferior. Caring for and valuing others are not qualities that we should expect only in women, nor are they inferior characteristics..

The apostle Paul writing to the Colossian church said:

As God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

He didn't write these words just to the women in the community. He wrote them to everyone. Compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience are manly. Well, actually they are neither manly nor womanly, they are godly characteristics. Let's move away from the whole idea that certain qualities as masculine or feminine and affirm those proclaim and uphold the worth and value of all humans.

We men need to radically rethink what it means to be a man. We need a new image and understanding of masculinity that doesn't promote exerting power and control over others, that doesn't denigrate compassion, kindness and humility, that doesn't glorify violence as the solution to problems. Our current limited view of masculinity fails to prepare men to treat others with respect and dignity. It robs us of our own worth and dignity as well by dictating that real men have to act in certain, stereotyped ways in order to not be perceived as “effiminate” as if that in and of itself were somehow bad.

Men, we need to have this conversation. Our response to a tragedy such as the one at Sandy Hook should not be limited just to questions of gun control or even mental health issues. Let's use this as an impetus to redefine manhood, letting go of power, control and violence and embracing humility, compassion and gentleness. Let's stop robbing ourselves of half (or more) of our humanity. Let's teach ourselves and our sons that there is a different, better way to live.

Women, you also have a key role in redefining masculinity. As mothers, wives, sisters, friends and in every other way in which you interact with men, you either affirm and perpetuate the dominant truncated view of masculinity, or you support those who strive to redefine it in healthier, more wholistic ways -- the unguys we might call them. We need you to tell men that manliness does not lie in physical strength, in control and dominance, in the suppression of all emotions other than anger. Many of you are doing this and I appreciate that. But too often the message of false masculinity is proclaimed and upheld not only by the men of our culture, but by the women as well. We must work together to change this.

I recommend this thought-provoking article as well as this one by Soraya Chemaly for further reflection on this topic. She also gives many links to other articles for further exploration of this important subject.

I Hope the Iranians Love Their Children Too

I grew up during the Cold War. Growing up in those years meant learning implicitly to fear and hate Russians (because at the time, I and probably most others didn't really understand that the Soviet Union consisted of multiple ethnic groups, not only Russians). We viewed them as the great red menace that threatened our very way of life. We certainly did not think of them as real people who lived day by day and who had hopes, dreams, worries and fears that in many ways were not that different from our own. We couldn't be allowed to think of them in this way, because if we did, we might begin to see them as human. Once we recognized their humanity, we might dare to question the morality of threatening them with annihilation just so that we could feel more secure.

Even before the end of the Cold War I had my first opportunity to travel behind “the Iron Curtain,” the physical and philosophical barrier that divided Europe for almost two generations. Behind the curtain I met real people who got up, went to work or school, ate their food, spent time with their family and other daily activities much as I did, even if the specifics looked quite different and the language they spoke seemed quite strange. Some years later, after the Berlin Wall came down and Europe radically reoriented itself, I had the opportunity to live in Russia and become friends with not only Russians but people from other ex-Soviet ethnic groups. Sometimes it struck me as quite strange, meeting people whom not so many years earlier I could have easily found myself at war with. At the same time I recognized once again the commonality of our humanity. Yes, we had differences, but ultimately we shared very significant similarities. Now that I have friends among Russians and other groups, I cannot simply see them as an anonymous, faceless “other,” an enemy to fear and defend against. I could not easily go to war against them, because I would know that on the other side of that battle front were people much like me, people who might know friends of mine, or who might even be friends of mine.

Some still fear the Russians, but for the most part Americans have shifted their fear to other people groups. The attacks of September 11 focused us on a new enemy. And just as we did in the Cold War and prior to that in other wars, we have labeled another group that is different from us as the enemy. We promote fear and even hatred of these people because we feel threatened. Certainly there are some who do threaten our country and our way of life. But rather than seeing them as the exception, we choose to identify all who are like them as an anonymous mass. It's much easier to hate them that way. We don't have to acknowledge their individuality or their humanity. We “other” them so that we don't have to feel any compassion for them or acknowledge them as humans who also have basic human rights.

I see this in particular at the moment in the attitude toward Iranians. Iranians are the new Russians. They are the face of evil. All Iranians obviously detest us and wish nothing more than to annihilate the United States and Israel. We feel justified in calling for violence and aggression against these people because, after all, they are “the enemy.” In doing so we conveniently forget, or ignore, that most Iranians have no say in the activities of their government. Most of them simply want to live life, to take care of their families, to experience a little bit of joy. Although in many ways different from us, they too share in our common humanity. While working overseas I had the opportunity to meet a few Iranians in person. I found most of them to be quite pleasant people, very hospitable and sociable, and not at all antagonistic toward me as an American. Meeting these people challenged and changed my perception of this people group, because they reminded me that Iranians are people too.

Whenever we are inclined to label a group of people, to paint them with a broad brush, to deny them their basic human rights simply because we feel threatened by them or because they are different from us, we need to stop and remember that whatever group we are labeling is really nothing more than a collection of individuals, each with a unique personality, each seeking to live his or her life just as we are. Each person, whatever her or his nationality, ethnicity, sexuality or any other characteristic, has been created uniquely by God and is treasured by her or his Creator. When we see people in this way, can we possible treat their lives as anything less than precious?

I am deeply troubled by the calls I see in the media that call for violence and promote hatred and fear of other groups. I am particularly disturbed that many times these calls come from people who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ. I read calls for the United States to retaliate against Libyans, or Iranians, or others with overwhelming force, not thinking about the many ordinary people who will suffer and die as a result of our excessive response. To those calling for such action, these lives don't matter. They are not worth as much as our American lives. Surely God weeps when hearing such words. God, who died that all people might experience new life, does not consider an American life one bit more valuable than a Libyan, Iranian or Russian life. To think otherwise is faulty theology.

The other day I was listening to an old song by Sting from the era of the Cold War. I think its message still has value for us to day, so I close by sharing this song with you.

A Time to Remain Silent and a Time to Speak

Sometimes we men need to simply shut up. Especially male politicians. We need to recognize that there are topics on which we are not qualified to speak. Instead we need to remain silent and let those speak who are qualified. For those who have not followed the news recently, yet another male politician, Richard Mourdock—a Republican senatorial candidate in Indiana, opened his mouth and stuck his foot way down his throat earlier this week when he said:

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." (emphasis mine)

I hope those words leave you feeling as sick and angry as they do me. Unfortunately Mr. Mourdock is not the first politician to make such asinine statements. Remember Missouri candidate Todd Akin earlier this year? Remember the comments about “legitimate rape”? As if these comments by politicians were not bad enough Mark Galli, writing for Christianity Today affirmed Mr. Mourdock's statement. He wrote:

"It almost goes without saying that for Christians, while rape is a terrible thing, in the providence of God, this too can be redeemed, a tragic event from which love can emerge. And yet we live in a society in which many find this view intolerable, outside the bounds — anathema. This is a delicate conversation we're a part of in America, one that requires us to eschew the cheap advice or platitudes of Job's counselors, to be sure. Then again, it may be even more "disrespectful to the survivors of rape" to fail to tell them about the wondrous redeeming power of God, even in the most horrible circumstances." (emphasis mine)

I wasn't going to comment on this, because many excellent bloggers have already spoken strongly and clearly about these comments, among others: Danielle at From Two to One, Dianna Anderson, and this article by Lynn Beisner which explores the theology behind statements such as Mr. Mourdock's. But after reflecting on this issue I realized that we do need men to speak out as well, not to proclaim our great wisdom on matters such as rape, but to denounce such statements alongside our sisters. We men need to also be saying that views such as those espoused by Mr. Akin and Mr. Mourdock have no place in our civil discourse. They certainly have no place among those who will pass the laws which govern our society. These men are entitled to hold whatever opinion they want, but they need to learn to keep silent about them rather than speaking and exposing their foolishness. I am reminded of the oft-quoted phrase: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” Men, we cannot just see this as a “women's issue” and allow other men to devalue the trauma faced by women (and men) who have been raped.

In fact I need to modify my earlier statement. We men do need to be silent if we are inclined to speak about rape as if we really know anything about it. But we should not be silent in that we must acknowledge our complicity in a culture that devalues women and exalts men in such a way that rape becomes seen as a women's issue. It's not a women's issue in that most rape is perpetrated by men. So it's a men's issue as well. We don't have anything to say to survivors and victims of rape, other than to come alongside them, listen to them and offer our support in whatever way they need it. But we need to speak honestly and openly about the patriarchal culture which we support and benefit from that objectifies, sexualizes and demeans women, such that rape becomes legitimized in some perverse fashion. I am not saying that most of us men are rapists. But we tacitly and often actively perpetuate a culture in which the women around us live in fear. We go so far as to place the blame on them for the actions of men, telling them that if they only dressed more modestly and behaved differently—if only they would not “tempt” men so much, they wouldn't likely become victims. We need to stop teaching such crap to our sons. We need to stop perpetuating these lies through the media. We need to stop believing them ourselves. We need to accept responsibility for our own actions and then we need to consciously choose to act differently toward women. When we stop seeing women as different than us, as weaker than us, as needing our protection; when we stop relegating women to second (or lower) class status, then we can begin to transform society and, more specifically, the mentality that supports the culture of rape. We must let go of our power and privilege—rape after all is another means by which we men exert power over women (and other men at times)--and embrace women as fully equally partners in society. These are the things we need to be talking about. But we should remain silent on how victims of rape should behave and how they should view their situation. 


For those who call themselves by the name of Christ, we need to do all this even more so within the church. Unfortunately in many churches that status of women is lower than in society as a whole. Yes, we affirm that we treasure and value “our” women, and in a very real way we do. But we often do so by relegating them to a certain sphere of life, asserting that as long as they remain within their God-given roles they will be less likely to encounter the evils that befall women such as rape. We often implicitly accept the idea that good women won't find themselves in such situations, so therefore those who do must obviously have been doing something wrong (i.e. immoral) and therefore in some sense “got what they deserved.” There is no place for such language or thinking within the church. The church needs to affirm the full worth and dignity of women and speak out against evil in all forms, including the evil of rape. We need to stop condemning those who are victims of it, along with any condemnation of their choices afterwards. The church should be a place of healing and restoration and we men need to do our part to make it so. Again this includes releasing our hold on power and privilege and inviting our sisters to participate fully in all aspects of life.

Finally, we men need to vote in such a way that men such as Mr. Mourdock and Mr. Akin will not be in positions to write laws on issues such as rape. These men have no business influencing such laws and as voters, we need to use our vote to make sure they don't. In this small way we can also stand alongside our sisters against the evil of rape. It's time we men learned when to speak and when to remain silent.

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...

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.”

Thoughts on Reading Numbers 31

I was reading Numbers 31 the other day. At the LORD's command, Moses sends out the army of Israel to take vengeance on the Midianites. The men fight victoriously and kill every adult Midianite male (v. 7). As they return, Moses, the priests and the community leaders go out to meet the army and Moses becomes angry with them. At this point (vv 15-18) we hear the voice of Moses:

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They are the ones who followed Balaam's advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

These verses really trouble me. I do not know how to reconcile them with God being a God of love, mercy and grace. Through his prophet Moses he is ordering the murder of women and male children and sanctioning the enslavement of female youth and children. This ostensibly is being done because the women led the Israelite men into idolatry. But even if we acknowledge that some of them did this, a blanket judgment on all the older women seems quite harsh. And what became of the young women who were kept alive? Were they mere household slaves, which would be bad enough, or did they suffer even worse abuse and degradation? The text is vague about this other than that a certain percentage of them were offered to the Levites as a tribute to the LORD.

Considering how readily we condemn Islam for inciting acts of violence against non-believers, it seems we need first to wrestle with the skeletons in our own closet. I read a book entitled Laying Down the Sword that raised this question and gave some suggestions for how one needs to deal with such passages, as I talked about here. I'd like to find a hermeneutic that gives me a means to interpret and respond to passages like this. Currently, along with Rachel HeldEvans and many others, I'm reading N.T. Wright's book Scripture and the Authority of God. I'm hoping that he may point to a way forward through passages like this, but we haven't read far enough in the book to have an answer yet.

I think these passages should disturb us. The commentary in my NIV Study Bible (2011 edition) doesn't indicate that these passages are in any way disturbing. This violence is treated as the appropriate and reasonable response to the godlessness and idolatrous ways of the Midianites, particularly their acts in leading the Israelites astray. Is it as simple as that? If so, why do we not pursue a similar course of vengeance today when we see acts of godlessness? (Mind you, I'm not encouraging this and would be appalled by anyone who did encourage or act in such a way.) These are some of the questions asked by the author of Laying Down the Sword. Unfortunately I've heard little or no dialog about these issues in most Christian circles.

How do you respond to this passage? How do you reconcile this with a God of love, who desires that all may be saved? What do you think should be done with such violent passages?

Some Thoughts on Laying Down the Sword

While in the local public library recently I noticed a book on display entitled Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses by Philip Jenkins. I didn't immediately check out the book. In fact I put it back on the shelf, left the library and only returned to check it out the next day after a night of thinking about what the book might have to say. I will not argue that the book is profound, but it is thought-provoking and worth consideration by anyone who ascribes some type of authority to the Bible.

Jenkins starts with the fact that the Bible contains verses that describe actions which to our modern sensibilities are reprehensible and unacceptable. In fact, were we to encounter a description of such actions today we would likely refer to them as genocide. He has in mind particularly the stories of the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, though he does make reference and consider other troublesome passages as well. He acknowledges that much of our modern sensibilities, the very ones that should trouble us when we read passages such as those in the book of Joshua, have in fact grown out of a Judeo-Christian tradition and asks how it is possible that we are able to tolerate the existence of such stories in the Bible.

He points to a few primary means of dealing with this disturbing texts. Historically they have often been allegorized, meaning that they have been read not essentially as factual historical documents but as stories that depict in human activities the spiritual realities that humans confront. For example, the battle to drive out the Canaanites might be read as the story of each believer needing to drive out sinful characteristics in his or her own life. These types of readings occurred more frequently early in church history and often seem quaint and unrealistic to modern readers.

Another response has been to project contemporary believers into the place of the Israelites and assigning whatever enemy they faced to the role of the Canaanites. In this way people could justify the fight against and even the annihilation of other ethnic groups. This response should rightfully trouble us, but continues to hold merit in certain circles even today. Jenkins shows how this type of reading has led to very “unchristian” behaviors, including massacres and genocides, perpetuated because of a particular biblical hermeneutic. Corollary to this, the violent acts are justified by arguing that the victims were particularly evil, unholy and a threat to the survival of righteous people and even of humanity in general. Such a viewpoint may also emphasize the sovereignty of God, arguing that anything God commands cannot be wrong, therefore the annihilation of a nation or city cannot be considered morally reprehensible when God himself has commanded it. God must have his reasons and even when we don't fully understand them, we must accept them.

Yet another response has been to effectively expunge these texts, not removing them from the canon by deletion but by neglect. This, Jenkins argues, has occurred in most Christian churches today. He gives the example of the Revised Common Lectionary and shows how a reader following the readings of this lectionary would never have to deal with the most violent passages of the Bible. A corollary to this approach has been to pass lightly over such passages. In this way one might continue to present the story of Joshua taking Jericho but not really consider the full implications of the story in terms of the eradication of an entire city or race.

Many Christians will have difficulty accepting Jenkin's arguments because he makes clear at the beginning of his book that he does not accept as factually historical the stories in which the most violent texts are found. He presents evidence for his position, evidence that will carry weight with some and which others will reject out of hand. However, regardless of how one views the authority and factual historicity of the Bible, Jenkin's book raises questions that Christians should address. Whether one accepts the story of Joshua's conquests as factual history or not, the Christian church has included them in its canon from the earliest years of church history and they have formed a part of Christian theology and worldview. If one rejects them as historical, one must still take into account their presence within the canon and the effect they have had through the centuries. If one accepts them as historical, then one must wrestle with the implications for our understanding of God and his interaction with humanity. The issues are not easily resolved and therefore are generally avoided.

Jenkins raises these questions at this time in part, I believe, because of the number of voices, Christian and non-Christian, that argue that Islam is an inherently violent religion, as demonstrated by its holy book the Quran. Jenkins counters that the Bible in fact contains more passages that clearly advocate and condone violence than anything found in the Quran. Whether one accepts or rejects this, Jenkins presents evidence and arguments that must be taken into consideration. Jenkins also claims that, just as Christianity and Judaism have outgrown their more violent tendencies by and large (allowing for certain fringe groups that would continue to use such passages as grounds for ethnic or religious violence), so there is hope that the voices in Islam that advocate a broader, more tolerant approach to those of different faiths, will gain the ascendancy in Islamic interpretation. Ultimately, Jenkins says, we must remember the context in which any holy text is written and in which it is currently being interpreted and applied.

Jenkins presents some suggestions for how one might read these violent passages. He advocates, like Martin Luther, that the reader “read cleanly,” meaning that he or she must consider whether a given passage applies to the reader today or not. If it does, then the reader must seek to understand how. This approach recognizes what most believers actually practice even if they affirm the inspiration of every word of the Bible: that some verses are applicable to the modern reader and others are not. Jenkins quotes the medieval scholastics, who had a rule: “Quidquid reciptur ad modum recipientis recipitur,” which he translates into English as roughly: “What people hear depends on who is doing the hearing.” Jenkins also advocates reading any text within the larger context both of the particular book and the Bible as a whole. This requires an awareness of the context in which a particular book or story was originally written as well as the overall purposes of the Bible. Finally, Jenkins recommends that readers “read from below,” that is, that we consider each story not only from the perspective of the protagonists, the victors and the heroes, but also from the perspective of the vanquished, the oppressed and the powerless. This requires listening to interpretations coming from voices of those who have been or are marginalized and not simply to those who continue to write from positions of power, privilege and influence.

This book troubled me. It also challenged me to think about and read the Bible differently. I recommend it to others who want to engage with the biblical text that is, not the one we like to think of existing: the one that contains passages that are disturbing, even reprehensible. If we cannot do this honestly then we cannot deal truthfully with those who question the meaning and authority of the Bible.