No Mothers Day

As we prepare to celebrate Mother's Day in the United States next Sunday, this video really caught my attention:





Maternal health remains a serious global concern. According the the World Health Organization's Trends in Maternal Mortality Report:

• Every 90 seconds a woman dies from a pregnancy related death, that's 1,000 women a day
• 90 percent of these deaths are preventable
• 99 percent of maternal deaths that took place in 2008 (most recent data from 2010 study) occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (57 percent) and South Asia (30 percent)
• 50 percent of all maternal deaths take place during the first 48 hours after delivery.
• Seven million women a year suffer critical complications. For every woman that dies, another 20 experience debilitating and life threatening harm.

But women's health is not only a problem in developing countries far away. It remains an issue here in the United States, where we boast of the quality of our health care. Our country ranks 50th in the world in terms of maternal health -- lowest among industrialized countries. Women in the United States face a higher rate of maternal death than in almost all European countries, Canada and several countries in the Middle East and Asia. Surely we can do better. Yet, rather than working to improve this situation, we have (male) politicians working to limit and restrict women's access to health care. This should not be. While most of the world has shown improvement in areas of maternal health, the United States has worsened. For more detail, I recommend reading Soraya Chemaly's blog post on this issue, which made me aware of the campaign and video above.


As we celebrate Mother's Day, let's keep in mind the deadly hazards women face in becoming mothers even now in 2012. Keep these dangers in mind as well as you consider who to support in this election year. We can do better in protecting our women from needless death, but some of our politicians seem to think that our women don't really have the need or right to the care that could not only improve but potentially save their lives. 

The Lord's Prayer - Part 6

Today we reach the end of our series looking at the Lord's Prayer through the insight of N.T. Wright in his book The Lord and His Prayer.

For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.


An initial comment on this phrase is in order. Many translations, including the NIV ©2011 that I most often use, do not include this phrase in the main text, relegating it to a footnote because it is not found in the most reliable early manuscripts of Matthew's gospel. Wright acknowledges this but affirms the place of this phrase within the prayer, arguing “it is actually inconceivable, within the Jewish praying styles of his day, that Jesus would have intended the prayer to stop simply with 'deliver us from evil'. Something like this must have been intended from the beginning. In any case, it chimes in exactly with the message of the prayer as a whole: God's kingdom, God's power, and God's glory are what it's all about.”


With that in mind we'll put aside any discussion of whether this phrase belongs in the prayer or not and consider what it tells us as pray-ers. Wright spends most of this chapter examining the role and significance of Caesar in the time when Jesus walked on the earth. For those of us who were born and raised in a modern democratic state, we relate with difficulty to life under a autocratic monarch. In fact the idea may be repugnant to us. But such was the state of things in ancient Palestine and such is still the condition in many parts of the world, whether the title Caesar or king still used by the one in control.


In light of this, Wright reminds us that Jesus' actions as well as his prayer teach us to turn our eyes to the true source of power, authority and glory. He sets up a stark contrast to the man on the throne in Rome, because in Jesus himself the kingdom of God has come in power and glory. The very king of heaven walks on the earth among his people. And he demonstrates his power and authority in ways quite different from what most Jewish people expected or desired. He did not come wielding physical power to overthrow the existing kingdoms of the earth. He didn't exalt himself. In fact he sought to put attention off himself onto the God he himself served. He did not behave as one would expect a king to behave, and for some of those who were inclined to follow him at that time this created too much internal dissonance for them to take that step of discipleship. Still today many struggle with accepting a Jesus who demonstrates his power through weakness, humility and ultimately surrender. We are still not comfortable with this real Jesus and often recast him in an image more palatable to our conceptions of power, authority and glory. As we pray this prayer and reach this closing phrase, we should keep in mind that Jesus is indeed king and that to him do belong power and glory. We should also keep in mind that he expresses this in ways that run in stark contrast to the ways of the world.


As we pray these words we should also be challenged to work as representatives, ambassadors of this king. We are here not only to allow this king to transform our own internal lives. Jesus came to restore the created order and to inaugurate the kingdom-rule of Jesus. He confronts any who set themselves up as an alternative source of true authority over and against him. He declares that he will cast kings from their thrones and lift up the humble. He will send the rich away empty while filling the hungry. (See Luke 2:46-55). And he invites us to participate in this process.


“It is not enough, though it is the essential starting-point, that we submit in our own lives to God's alternative kingdom-vision; we must pray and work for the vision to come in reality, with the rulers of this world being confronted with the claims of their rightful king. We cannot, then, pray this prayer and acquiesce in the power and glory of Caesar's kingdom.”


Ultimately then, the Lord's Prayer is not just a pray for the comfort and renewal of our own souls. It reminds us that we are part of something much, much larger and more significant than ourselves. In Jesus God's kingdom has entered our world and is in the process of transforming it into the kingdom of heaven. We his people are not called to just sit quietly in our churches or homes, working to live lives of personal purity and holiness. We are called to join Jesus in establishing his kingdom. Our prayers should be joined by our actions in bringing God's desired restoration and renewal of his created order. This is a high calling indeed and one that should leave us both overwhelmed and enthusiastic. We cannot do it on our own or in our own strength. That's why we must regularly pray this prayer, bringing our focus back to the one through whom the world has been and is being transformed.  But we can be enthusiastic – literally filled with God – because he has invited us to join him in this fantastic work. I wonder whether much of the current apathy both within and outside of the church toward the Gospel message comes because we have so reduced it to a message of personal salvation that it fails to ignite the passion of many. It simply offers too little to compel others to join in the cause. A proper understanding and practice of this prayer may be a good place to start changing that perception and focus. I close with Wright's words, who expresses it quite well:


“If the church isn't prepared to subvert the kingdoms of the world with the kingdom of God, the only honest thing would be to give up praying this prayer altogether.”


How has Wright's exegesis of the Lord's Prayer impacted your perception and practice of it and of your faith?

In Which My Blood Boils

My wife called my attention to another excellent article recently. While I don't agree with everything this author writes, much of what he said resonated very strongly with this unguy. (Chris, should you ever read this post, you're welcome to join the Unguy Club.)


Like the author, I too am not a member of the Dude's Club. I'm pretty sure I never have been. And while there have been times I wished I could be, I have reached a point of contentment in not being in. In fact I no longer mind being excluded and wouldn't want to join even if I could.


“I'm okay with that, really. Members of the Dude's Club are hard to talk to. When I hang out with them, I feel like I'm constantly being weighed, measured, and found wanting. If I don't drop enough sports references, or if my voice cracks, of if I use too many art terms, or if I express an awe of beauty, or if I talk about how I love to cook, or if I'm not physically aggressive enough, or if I wear the wrong colors, or if I talk poetry... I feel as if I'm relegated to a lesser status. Not a real man. Not a man's man anyway.”


Among the guys I know locally, the favorite activities seem to be hard-core bicycling and hunting. Although I enjoy bicycling, I'm definitely not hard-core about it (I don't have the gear and can't afford it even if I wanted to) and I do not enjoy hunting in the least. Nor am I at all interested in guns. So that effectively limits my involvement and puts me outside the Dude's Club at my church.


More significantly than this question of inclusion or exclusion from the Dude's Club, I like how this author examines the use of the term “effeminate.” Although I disagree with him on the complementarian/egalitarian question, I think he's on target with questioning the way that some Christian leaders (and others) use the word “effeminate” as a label to discount and marginalize men who do not fit their image of manliness. These men are gender shaming all those who don't subscribe to their definition of what a man (or woman) should be. And that's wrong.


“Thus my conclusion is, these 'Esau Christians' are guilty of using gender shaming as a way to insult those they disagree with on minor issues.” [I would argue that not all these issues are minor.] “Call someone effeminate and you can marginalize them. Nitpick about their clothing and you can explain them away as part of the problem. Associate that music style that you dislike so much with womenfolk, and you can get people to reject it. It's emotional manipulation. Faggot, pussy. Girly-man. It's manipulative and it's wrong. Because God, even if he turns out to be complementarian, embraces a wider and larger view of masculinity than Driscoll and Wilson and Rosebrough do. There is room in the church for all kinds of men.”


Like this author, I am not trying to say that men cannot be “manly” in the traditional cultural understanding of this term. If a guy likes guns, or cars, or sports, then great. But if a guy likes art and poetry, beautiful fabrics and pastel colors, that's okay too. We err when we establish some type of behaviour as normal for either gender and then ridicule, mock and marginalize those who don't hold to that. We do this with women as well, pushing them into stereotyped images of what it means to be a godly women that usually have far more to do with our cultural conceptions than they do with anything God has in mind. That was my point in this post. Gender is defined culturally, not divinely.


This use of effiminate as a pejorative label also bothers me deeply because it implies (or states even) that things associated with woman are somehow inferior. It continues the practice of marginalizing activities, behaviours and character-traits that have come to be defined as feminine. The division of these character-traits, behaviours and such into categories of masculine and feminine is culturally and socially driven in the first place and inaccurate in the second. These divisions and labels more often than not define that which is “masculine” as superior and preferable and that which is “feminine” as inferior and to be avoided, particularly by men. Based on these perceptions the worst thing a man could be is like a woman, as if a woman is somehow inferior and exhibits undesirable qualities by virtue of being a woman.


The Body of Christ called the Church should be a place where each individual can embrace and live out her or his identity as a woman or man of God without regard to her or his biological sexual identity. Belittling men because they don't fulfill one's concept of what a “real man” is like has no place in the Church. None. 


“My God is big enough that he describes himself in both Father imagery and Mother imagery. He is bigger than gender, bigger than gender roles, bigger than all the silly trappings. And if in my God there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female – then there certainly isn't any demarcation between the properly manly men in the Dude's club and those of us who aren't macho enough to make the cut.”


And if an unguy like me gets labeled as effeminate, I will accept that as a badge of honor, for it identifies me with our sisters who have been marginalized and demeaned for far too long.

What Makes a Home?

What is the difference between a house and a home? A house describes simply a dwelling; a place where people live. Home speaks of more than that. It includes the idea of a dwelling place, but incorporates emotional and intangible elements of identity and belonging.

When we returned to the United States last summer we had to make some decisions very quickly, including finding a place to live. We were able to locate and rent an apartment in a location convenient to our daughter's high school, which at that point was one of the most important criteria. But the apartment felt quite small for a family of four. Although each child had her or his own room, the overall space available for family life was tiny. My wife didn't want to invite guests because of the poor conditions for hospitality, including a miniscule kitchen. The apartment felt dark and our spirits suffered. The apartment served as a house, but didn't become a home.

In March we had the opportunity to move into a rental home. The move was a step of faith, because the higher rent and higher utilities stretch our budget very thin. But when we viewed the house, my wife was sold the minute we walked in the front door. The open living room with the sloped, wood-paneled ceiling and the large kitchen (probably the largest of any we've ever had) captured her immediately. The house included a room separate from the main house, which would serve us well as a home office. No longer would I have to conduct my work from a corner of our crowded bedroom. My wife didn't have to work hard to persuade me to pursue renting the property.

The house includes a nice, enclosed front yard. It's an Arizona yard, which means we have very little vegetation. Grass just doesn't go with our desert environment. But we have several large native trees like the one in this picture providing lovely shade (and, unfortunately, currently dropping lots of pollen which covers the yard with a yellow layer.) The shade keeps the yard somewhat cooler than one would expect in our desert climate and the trees attract a host of birds who sing each morning. Let's not forget the lizards who come out to sun themselves on the patio in the heat of the day.

This house has become our home, which is what we need as we continue to work through the process of re-adjusting to life in our home country. We had hoped to purchase a house and make that our home, but for the present that dream remains out of reach. At first this disappointed us greatly, but now we are at peace with the home that God has provided. It is nice to once again have a place to call home; a place of sanctuary and retreat.

What makes your house a home? What attributes do you most appreciate in it?

Is Peace Realistic?

As I read the biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Ferdinand Schlingensiepen, I came across these words Bonhoeffer spoke at an ecumenical gathering in Denmark in 1934. Aware of the threat Naziism posed to not only his own country but to Europe and the world, Bonhoeffer raised a cry for peace that ran strongly counter to the attitude then prevalent in Germany.


“'Let me hear what God the Lord will speak: for he will speak peace to his people, and to his faithful' (Ps. 85:8). Between the twin crags of nationalism and internationalism, ecumenical Christendom calls upon its Lord and asks for guidance. Nationalism and internationalism have to do with political necessities an possibilities. The ecumenical church movement, however, does not concern itself with these things, but with the commandments of God, and regardless of consequences it transmits these commandments to the world … Peace on earth is not a problem, but a commandment given at Christ's coming. There are two ways of reacting to this command from God: the unconditional, blind obedience of action, or the hypocritical question of the Serpent: 'Did God say …?' This question is the mortal enemy of obedience, and therefore the mortal enemy of all real peace … Has God not understood human nature well enough to know that wars must occur in this world, like laws of nature? Must God not have meant that we should talk about peace, to be sure, but that it is not to be literally translated into action? Must God not really have said that we should work for peace, of course, but also make ready tanks and poison gas for security? And then perhaps the most serious question: Did God say you should not protect your own people? Did God say you should leave your own a prey to the enemy?


No, God did not say all that. What God has said is that there shall be peace among all people – that we shall obey God without further question, that is what God means. Anyone who questions the commandment of God before obeying has already denied God.”


I don't know how to respond to this challenge. I recognize the call of Jesus to be peacemakers and strive to fulfill that in my relationships. But is it realistic to expect peace on a national and international scale? The voice Bonhoeffer describes as the question of the Serpent rings still in my ears. Don't we have a responsibility to protect ourselves, our families, our culture and our way of life? I think this question demands serious discussion and consideration in our modern world. Many people in the United States, including many who call themselves followers of Christ, will unquestioningly support maintaining, increasing and utilizing our military power in defense of our own interests. They call for stronger laws, higher walls and tougher enforcement to keep out the foreigners – forgetting that most of our ancestors were at one time foreigners here as well. We need to honestly and deeply examine these positions in light of the message of the Gospel. I understand the call to look out for our own and am sympathetic to it. It is the way of the world. But I keep wondering, does God call us to a different way, even when that path runs contrary to the world's logic? Is Bonhoeffer right in saying that by hedging on obeying God's call to be peacemakers, we are denying God?


What do you think?

To, For or With?

I've been slowly walking through Kathy Escobar's book Down We Go, sharing with you some of the many things I gained from this great book. I can't capture all of what she says – I guess if I could you wouldn't need to read the book yourself. Last week I mentioned a paradigm shift that Kathy presents in her book and today I want to look at that (in case anyone thought I might never actually get around to it!)

In her chapter “There is no 'us' or 'them', only us” Kathy speaks about the work of friends at the Center for Transforming Mission in Tacoma. They build their work on a premise that “authentic transformational relationships can not be built upon power of inequality.” Yet, she argues, that is exactly the foundation on which much ministry is based. 


“In most Christian and typical mission-oriented circles, the most prevalent preposition has become the word 'to.'” We speak of needing to give or bring something “to” someone else: wisdom, biblical truth, life-changing knowledge or advice or any number of other things. “The problem with the preposition 'to' is that it begins with an 'I'm up and you're down' perspective of power that is patronizing and disempowering. Someone has more resources, knowledge, and put-togetheredness than the other. This posture often ends up making the one on the receiving end feel like a project or loser.”


I've seen this often in my experience. In fact I've often been guilty of it. I want to bring my immense(?) resources, knowledge and gifts to others so that by receiving them they can be better. The motivation is not wrong, Kathy acknowledges. It may be quite sincere. But it operates from a faulty paradigm that keeps the giver in control.


The second false approach to ministry can be identified with the preposition “for.” It is not radically different from the “to” approach, but emphasizes doing things for someone who is hurting, or disadvantaged or in any way “less” something than we are. It says to the other “Let me do this for you.” “The problem with this kind of approach to others,” writes Kathy, “is that it creates codependence. Helpers get sucked into helping and also end up in a one-up role where they are the ones who need to take care of the person, make things happen for them, or remain in the role where they [are] always 'serving' people.”


The fundamental problem with approaching ministry as a “to” or “for” activity is that it places the minister above the person or people being served. The ministry can become more about satisfying the desire or need of the minister to be useful. The person serving derives his or her sense of worth and identity from being needed. The focus and power remain with the minister rather than those being served. I think this often happens subtly and those serving often are not aware of the way in which ministering to others is about meeting their own needs for identity. Nor do we recognize that when we serve in this way we do so from a position of power and distance.


The new or alternative paradigm (my word, not hers) Kathy proposes is to think and speak using the preposition “with.” For example (from the book):


“I am with you in this moment, will stand alongside you, and am not walking ahead of you but alongside you.”


“I want to share my life with you, not just take care of you or tell you what to do.”


“You have some things I need to learn from you, too. Let's learn from each other.”


She explains this alternative relational dynamic, saying: “'With' removes imbalanced power from the relationship. It recognizes the fundamental dignity of the person...It begins with listening for the deeper story that informs the suffering. It waits patiently for the person to ask for help.”


I think she's on to something important here. I have had a few relationships that could have been “for” or “to”-oriented, but which I tried to make “with” relationships. They were challenging, but more rewarding. It meant opening myself up to listen, to learn, to be vulnerable and to walk alongside rather than swooping in, trying to resolve some problem quickly and moving on. These relationships are more difficult in many ways. They involve a higher level of personal risk and they require that we step down from our position of knowledge, power and control and enter into the life situation of those we say we care about. We must take the focus off of ourselves, off of being the savior or problem-solver for the other, and humbly open ourselves up to the transforming potential of true relationship.


“'With' relationships are messy, unpredictable, hard, confusing, and sure tap into our pain, history, fears, and annoyed, frustrated places. I understand how easy it is to stick with 'to' and 'for' modes of relationship. They protect us because they keep us in a place of power. They keep the focus off of us and on the other person. In the end, we don't need 'them;' they need 'us.' Even though that's easier, I believe that 'with each other' relationships create true transformation.”


What do you think? When you consider the relationships you have, particularly those in which you minister to others, are they more “to”, “for”, or “with” focused? How might it transform your life and those of others if you sought to enter into more relationships with a “with each other” attitude?

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.”