Natalie's Narrative

Your body is a temple (and no, this is not about sex...)

A few weeks ago, I criticized a post written by Tim Challies, in which I felt he had skipped an important step and uncritically assumed our culture's objectifying, consumerist, and harmful influences on women's body image.  Since then, I've thought a lot about what articulating a redemptive body image would look like.  I'm often criticized for only being "against" beliefs and practices of the evangelical church, without ever offering a constructive "for."  So, this is an attempt to work out an alternative to an aspect of American Christianity that I've taken issue with, drawing from my own experiences.

Early last year, I discovered the healthy living blog community.  Women in their 20's and 30's post up to three times a day about what they cook and eat, and also how they exercise.  While there are some on the fringes who clearly struggle with disordered eating (and thus blog every last morsel eaten and calorie burned), generally the emphasis is on eating real, unprocessed, ethically-derived food, without obsessing about a number on the scale or a clothing size.  These incredible women have run marathons and done triathlons -- but they've accomplished these athletic feats as ordinary, everyday women, not primarily athletes.  I've found that these blogs' focus on healthy living is positive, informative, and moves the discussion away from whether the bloggers have finally reached a certain weight or a size 6. 

One of the things that struck me in reading these blogs is that they offer an alternative to the harmful female body image that is dictated by our culture.  When many parts of the church have become dualist, in the sense that the physical, material world takes a backseat to the seemingly more important "spiritual stuff," I found it interesting that a blog community ended up articulating for me a "theology of the body" that is redemptive and directly confronts the consumerism and objectification that crushes women.

Personally, I have struggled, and continue to struggle, with disordered eating.  I binge.  It's an ugly thing that I do to my body.  The cycle of guilt and fat-talk isn't helped by the forces I mentioned in my post criticizing Challies: women's bodies are used everywhere, every day, to sell things, and a physical ideal is held up for us women.  Often, this ideal is not reality, and is instead created from Photoshop.  

Recently, a Yoplait Lite commercial, which the company ended up pulling, showed a woman's internal dialogue while she was deciding whether to eat dessert.  She claimed she had been "good," so she deserved to eat it.  During the mental bargaining, she even offered to jog in place while eating.  These sad gymnastics are what many women undergo on a daily -- sometimes hourly -- basis.  The act of eating food is a battle against the enemy, and we have this Photoshopped ideal hanging over every bite.  What a shame that something God created to sustain us and for us to enjoy has turned into a psychological nightmare at times.

However, the healthy living community has shown me that there is an alternative.  Food isn't the enemy; rather, it's fuel.  Want to train for a half marathon?  Then be sure to fuel your body and treat it with care.  And after you've run that race, even if just a 5k, you will be so proud of what your body just did.  My legs may be short and stumpy rather than our culture's oft-praised long and skinny, but they have brought me through several 5ks and a 10k.  Maybe someday I will thank my legs for getting me through a half marathon.  

Also, thoughtfully determining where my food comes from has been redemptive.  I cannot remember the last time I ate meat.  The seed was probably planted years ago when I read Fast Food Nation, but thanks to the likes of Michael Pollan and the healthy living blogs I discovered, I have no desire to eat factory-farmed meat.  Food and exercise, then, aren't a constant push-and-pull that will somehow get me to a size 2 or 4.  Believe me, I still struggle very much, but what was once a battle has been turned into a positive: fuel for health and for personal athletic accomplishments, as well as a way to live more justly in not contributing to the industrial food complex.

I thought of this more redemptive alternative last night at church, when we covered the whole "sex" topic with the students.  We discussed 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul says:

Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Yes, this is the anthem of evangelical youth groups all over North America when it comes to sex.  But, couldn't it also be a great way for women to reframe our distorted and damaging body image?  N.T. Wright, in a lecture he gave on worship and the spirit, discusses this passage and puts it into even richer context:

If the living God has chosen to come now to dwell, not in a single house of stone and timber but in the living bodies of human beings, that constitutes a call to worship, to a worship which consists of bringing glory to God in that body, not using the body for purposes which dishonour it, which (in other words) deconstruct the very nature of what humans were made to be and do. That is of course, in our language, a powerful ethical imperative. It is, for Paul, a matter of transferring the holy worship of Israel from the Jerusalem Temple to the bodies of individual members of the church, even in Corinth – especially in Corinth! Once more, the Spirit has taken the place of the Shekinah. Those who by baptism and faith are constituted members of the renewed worldwide people of God are called to a life of constant worship, constant sacrificial devotion to the God who is present to them and within them.

It deconstructs the very nature of what I was made to be and do when I engage in a cycle of restrict-and-binge.  It dishonors the purpose of my body when I tell myself I'm fat and let those glossy magazines dictate my self-worth and jeans size.  And moving away from strictly individual terms, this harmful body image and disordered eating interferes with the call to worship to bring glory to God with our bodies, as a worshipping community.  

If you're curious to see an example of this alternative lived out, check out Sarah's beautiful post at her blog, Emerging Mummy: In which I promise not to call myself fat.  

Smiley cheery women, emotional intelligence, and Tina Fey

Emily Hunter McGowin recently recommended Women in Theology, and I noticed that one of the contributors, Elizabeth, posted a word of advice for some men: "Smile Ladies!-Or not."  She recounted her experience with her male dentist, to which nearly all women can relate.  

Elizabeth's dentist told her she seemed "pensive."  After Elizabeth reassured him she was fine, he said, “Well you really need to relax. Go easy on yourself. Take a break, seriously. What would the saying be? Something like: ‘All work and no play makes Elizabeth a…?’  What is the saying?”  He later remarks, "You seem like you have so much on your mind,” which makes Elizabeth think to herself, "Of course I shouldn’t have anything on my mind, right? That, in and of itself, is an abomination."

photo © 2009 Alan Cleaver | more info (via: Wylio) I'll admit it, this picture made me smile...                        

While it may seem innocent enough, the underlying idea is that women are not supposed to have emotional complexity--or at least we aren't supposed to show it.  This may seem contradictory to the stereotype that women are more "emotional" creatures, but I think there are two damaging undercurrents to the exhortation to simply "smile!".  First, women aren't supposed to have important, complex thoughts.  As Elizabeth said, "[M]en have work and other important things to think about. They’re not emotional; they’re busy."  

Second, there is a subtle theme: women must present themselves as the smiley, cheery beings men want us to be.  I feel this way when men tell me to smile.  If I'm deep in thought, I'm ruining the image of the one-dimensional, available woman I'm supposed to be.  I can't be a multilayered human being with emotional intelligence - that's not attractive and controllable.  As Elizabeth puts it, "I guess a thinking woman really is a threat."  

I found mention, at a blog called The Geeky Wives, of a fascinating study done on infant boys and girls. While Kate, who mentioned the findings, didn't have a link to the actual study, I have seen this anecdotally.  In the study, a stranger would hold a baby while the baby's mother was not in the room.  When the stranger was told that the baby was a girl, and the baby cried, the stranger would tell the baby, "You're okay."  In contrast, when the stranger was told that the infant was a boy, the stranger would ask him, "What's wrong?" when he cried.  Kate remarked:

Telling someone that they are okay implies that whatever is bothering them isn’t true or real. We tell baby girls that they are okay when they’re crying because of the belief that girls shouldn’t express negative emotions. Women, have you ever been harassed by a stranger who tells you to smile, that life isn’t that bad? Well, how the hell should they know? [...] I’m trying not to tell my baby girl that she’s okay when she cries. I try to ask her what’s wrong — the first step in teaching true emotional intelligence.

Along these lines, Lisa Bloom recently shared on Huffington Post how to talk to little girls in an empowering way that does not bring the focus to the little girls' body.  Focusing on a child's body just sounds wrong, in a how-to-catch-a-predator way, doesn't it?  But in reading Bloom's article, I instantly recognized myself in her description of the way that many people act toward little girls.  I've made a conscious effort to counter distorted female body image, but nonetheless, when I interact with little girls, I usually comment on their hair or clothing, and use a higher-pitched voice.  Bloom notes, 

What's wrong with that? It's our culture's standard talking-to-little-girls icebreaker, isn't it? And why not give them a sincere compliment to boost their self-esteem? Because they are so darling I just want to burst when I meet them, honestly.

Bloom instead chooses to talk to them like she would speak to adults.  In one interaction, she found out about a little girl's love of books, which she considers "one tiny nudge towards valuing female brains."  Bloom has chosen to model and cultivate intelligence in girls, as opposed to simply talking about their outward appearance.  As a society, we can apply Bloom's suggestions to women of all ages.  Rather than merely telling us to smile, why not engage with us as intelligent fellow human beings?

One last thing - because I love 30 Rock and Tina Fey, I just had to mention the sexy-baby scene from an episode this past season.  Liz Lemon hires a new female writer, who wears pigtails, provocative clothing, and speaks in a high-pitched voice.  In a way that only Fey can do it (both hilarious and critical of our culture), Liz tries to convince the new writer to cut the act and quit caving to the pressure that society puts on her to act like a superficial, cheery girl.  

Fey did an interview on NPR a couple of months ago to promote her new book, and she remembered that a girl in one of her college acting classes also used this "baby" voice all the time.  No one had heard otherwise.  The teacher asked her to use her "adult-woman" voice, and when she did, all of the women in the class just looked at each other.  Fey said that those baby voices "are a habit that's just kind of worn in."

Yes, those who urge us to smile and who tell a baby girl not to cry, the seven year-olds twirling their dresses for someone they just met, the baby voice - it can all add up to be a damaging force to women.  We're not supposed to be complex, emotionally intelligent creatures.  Instead, simply tell us "You're okay" and paint a smile on our faces.  That is much easier to digest. 

Do undocumented immigrants take jobs from Americans?

One of the talking points of those opposed to a path for legalization of the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is that these immigrants take jobs from American citizens.  The undocumented population is often a convenient scapegoat, and many claim that their presence here is contributing to unemployment.  

Anecdotally, I know this claim is incorrect.  Off the top of my head, I can think of three people I know who are small business owners while also having undocumented status.  And guess what - they employ others!  On the flip side, I can think of more than three American citizens who are able-bodied, yet who do not have the motivation to work, much less start their own business.  

I have found that the undocumented population, with their entrepreneurial spirit, actually revitalize our communities, many of which would otherwise lose population and see an increasing number of businesses shuttered.

Last year, the United Farmworkers' Union ran a clever campaign called "Take Our Jobs."  Fans of The Colbert Report may recall Stephen Colbert featuring this initiative on his show.  Stating that they are ready to help the unemployed and welcome citizens and legal residents who wish to replace them in the field, the UFW explained:

There are two issues facing our nation--high unemployment and undocumented people in the workforce--that many Americans believe are related.

Missing from the debate on both issues is an honest recognition that the food we all eat - at home, in restaurants and workplace cafeterias (including those in the Capitol) - comes to us from the labor of undocumented farm workers.

Agriculture in the United States is dependent on an immigrant workforce. Three-quarters of all crop workers working in American agriculture were born outside the United States. According to government statistics, since the late 1990s, at least 50% of the crop workers have not been authorized to work legally in the United States.

A UFW organizer later reported, “Americans don’t want to work in the fields because conditions are horrid,” and he indicated that a mere three applicants out of the 9,000 who initially inquired actually ended up working in the fields.

The undocumented population is not only saving our agricultural economy, but many are also business owners with hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits each year and dozens of employees.  A CNN Money article from 2005 features "Jose," a Honduran man who now owns a garment business that paid six figures in taxes in 2004:

One of 11 children in a family so poor that he did not own shoes until he was 12, José couldn't find work in Honduras, so at 18, he illegally worked his way west and north into El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico. He took jobs at banana, mango, and sugar-cane plantations. One night, a year after he left Honduras, he sneaked into California near San Diego and traveled north by foot and bus. He knew no one in the U.S. and spoke no English. Sleeping on the streets of East Los Angeles, he waited each day with other immigrants at busy intersections to get construction and painting jobs, for which he was paid in cash. He sent much of his earnings to Honduras to buy his parents a house and to help his older brother join him in the U.S. "The jobs that paid $400 here would have paid $50 in Honduras," José recalls.

Jose eventually established his own garmentmaking company here, even while building 8 homes, an apartment building, and a store for his family back in Honduras (holy cow!):

To avoid any missteps that might derail their dream of becoming naturalized citizens, José and Maria [Jose's wife] have paid state and federal taxes each quarter. They use a federal-tax ID number that the government assigned the business, which they have incorporated in their names. They have obtained all necessary licenses. They contribute payroll taxes for their employees—even the third of them who are are illegal and use fake Social Security numbers bought on the street. The undocumented employees probably will never be able to reap government retirement benefits that they would accumulate if they were citizens. However, accepting the workers' phony Social Security numbers allows the factory to win jobs from large companies that require suppliers to show that all of their employees have this government identification.

With their company on track for about $1.2 million in sales for 2005, Maria and José are charging ahead and trying to ignore the legal cloud that hangs over them. They are considering the purchase of the building that houses the factory, which would allow them to generate rental income from other tenants. Though he is concerned that overseas competitors could hinder his company's growth, José says he is committed to staying in the U.S. He is optimistic that his company will qualify as having $1 million in profits over the next three or four years, which will allow him to reapply for a green card.

A study was recently released that indicated that white people see racism as a zero-sum game.  The results showed that whites felt that opportunities for black people have increased and that racism has decreased.  But at the same time, whites reported they felt these advances were at their own expense, and that discrimination against white people has increased, i.e. "reverse racism." 

photo © 2005 amanda kelso | more info (via: Wylio)

The results of this study were intriguing to me because I see similarities with many Americans' views on immigration: resources are limited, so immigrants who come here out of economic desperation to work are stealing jobs from deserving Americans.  Any upward mobility and a shot at the American dream is seen as a taking a piece of the limited pie from "real" Americans.  

I find this view to be misguided, ignorant, and often a result of racial and ethnic bias.  We should be welcoming those like Jose who want to keep their profitable factories here, rather than maximize and exploit what they can overseas.  But instead, we're scapegoating some of the most entrepreneurial and hardworking people in the world, all to defend a "rule of law" that is actually a woefully outdated, arbitrary, and broken system.  Economic opportunity is not a zero-sum game, so we should be thankful that resourceful, job-creating people want to come and invest in our country.

Photo credit

Do you only "do church" on Sundays?

The Christian Century's cover story from last month, by Amy Frykholm, discussed the younger generation's tendency to form loose connections, which has implications for the traditional church membership model.  Frykholm calls this phenomenon "new modes of affiliation."  As a result, churches have to start rethinking the way they do things.  While the article dealt with younger people's unwillingness to commit to a church, I was fascinated by a church in Washington State that seems to do things differently.  

Instead of using the traditional approach of church membership, which was developed in the 1960's, a small Episcopal church has found a creative way to form community.  Bishop Greg Rickel said,

What denominational metrics people are asking—how many people are in church on Sunday, for example—may not be the right measure for today. The measures that contemporary churches need may be more intuitive and more spiritual in nature.

Instead of focusing on numbers and membership growth, this Washington congregation is an important component of the local community.  Rickel compared his church to a "base camp," a center "where people stop to receive nourishment, training, basic supplies and encouragement," who then go out to serve others.

photo © 2003 Kyle Lease | more info (via: Wylio)

Commenting on the standard model, Rickel says, "We've only been paying attention to the people who stay. But maybe that's not the purpose [of the base camp]. Maybe we've been treating base camps as permanent residences."

The idea of a base camp reconfigures church as an outward-focused, building-less group of people who do more than simply meet for a couple of hours on Sunday mornings.  While Rickel notes that a base camp doesn't mean that congregations lose their distinctive identity and challenging ethic, but too often we have seen that increasing the membership rolls fails to translate into truly changed lives.  

A sociologist, Wade Clark Roof, who was cited in the article, points out:

Institutions want to count people. They want to report growth. But they may not be able to do that in the way they once did. Their assessment of vitality will have to take a different form. The forms are going to be more fluid, but this simply means that people will have to think seriously about what is worth preserving and why. That is not a bad question for religious institutions to ask. Lived traditions are always adapting to new circumstances. (emphasis added)

I loved this.  I suppose I'm part of the younger generation mentioned in Frykholm's article, so the idea of extending church beyond the 1960's institutional models appeals to me.  The pastor at the church I've recently started attending mentioned that he wants to see members "get in and get out" on Sunday mornings, so that we can be involved in the community the rest of the week.  I didn't quite know what to think of this at first, but now I see a similarity with Rickel's base camp idea.

Although the gathering of believers does serve an important purpose, deliberately pushing those boundaries of "what is church" beyond one morning a week or a physical building is intriguing.  Individually, Christians consider themselves Christians every day of the week, and seek to follow Christ all the time. But institutionally, churches have been more rigid and resistant to change, so they turn into, as Rickel called them, "permanent residences."  

What is an institution's purpose during the week?  An occasional phone call to the church office to see if a struggling family's electric bill can be paid?  I'm definitely not saying that the church staff are sitting there twiddling their thumbs all day - I'm wondering what's the relationship between those formally tied to the institution by virtue of their membership and the institution itself?

Unfortunately, it often looks like churches simply become repositories for more and more wealth and aspire for bigger and better buildings, and sometimes the "worship services" can resemble navel-gazing.  When we compartmentalize what it means to do church, paying someone's electric bill is just what you "do" as a Christian - it doesn't mean you call up the "church office."  Your participation in what is supposed to be a transformative community is not simply limited to a service on Sunday morning.

But on a broader level, beyond actions like paying individuals' bills every so often, I wonder: How many communities could be practically transformed if such wealthy, inward-looking institutions moved away from just tallying their attendance and membership statistics, to instead counting how many mouths the church community fed throughout the week?

Southern Baptists and diversity?

Last week, the Southern Baptist Convention held their annual meeting in Phoenix, and one of the measures passed was a commitment to include its non-white members in leadership positions and overall participation in the denomination.  According to a Baptist Press article:

After a two-year workgroup study of the motion, the SBC Executive Committee approved a 10-part recommendation for the Phoenix meeting, citing the "need to be proactive and intentional in the inclusion of individuals from all ethnical and racial identities within Southern Baptist life."

For the first time in history, the convention will ask its entities to provide "a descriptive report of participation of ethnic churches and church leaders in the life and ministry of the respective SBC entity;" the SBC president to "give special attention to appointing individuals who represent the diversity within the Convention" to committees under his purview; and a subcommittee of the EC to provide a report each year in February with an update on how each of the recommendations has been addressed.

I had to comment on this because I've been a broken record here about the fact that evangelicalism must move away from an exclusively white focus.  Also, is "ethnical" even a word?  I digress.  Anyway, because the SBC is only in existence because it broke away from Northern Baptists who decried slavery, race and the SBC can be a tricky issue.  The fact that a measure like this was even passed has to mean the SBC intends to move in the right direction (although I saw on Twitter that the opposing voices were quite an embarrassment).

@albertmohleralbertmohler

This debate should be humiliating to the SBC. Just look at us and ask if we need to prioritize ethnic diversity. #SBC2011 #Godhelpus

My concern is that this move may be an effort to keep the denomination alive, rather than to truly hear the voices and perspectives of people of color.  The news recently broke that the number of baptisms in the SBC, the benchmark of new converts (or already-converts who were scared enough during the "invitation" to do it all over again, just to be safe), is at its lowest point in 60 years.  Does the SBC want leadership that simply "looks" diverse and that will help it capitalize on the growing minority population in the U.S., or does it really want to hear diverse points of view?  

A few years ago I linked to a post by anthropology professor and evangelical Janell Paris.  In her discussion of inclusion of non-white, non-male Christians, she asked, "Are you tacking on a single woman, and maybe Martin Luther King, Jr. for good measure, just to appear inclusive? Or are you really being shaped by people different than yourself?"  I hope that the SBC members who passed the resolution asked themselves this question.  

Reading Divided by Faith and Reconciliation Blues (the latter mentioning the SBC specifically) was a huge, humbling challenge for me, as a white person who grew up in the SBC.  It was hard to take, and I would physically blush when I recognized myself as part of the criticized group.  However, I have tried to listen to what these books, my relationships with people of color, and other resources have been trying to teach me, as painful as it is.

photo © 2004 Dave Gilbert | more info (via: Wylio)

When a racially offensive and insensitive Vacation Bible School curriculum was released in 2004, thousands of Asian-Americans contacted the leadership at Lifeway, SBC's publishing arm.  The SBC refused to pull the curriculum, stating they had no intention of offending anyone and they consulted Asian-Americans and white missionaries who had lived in Asian countries about Japanese culture. (I blogged about it here).  

This unwillingness to listen to voices of people of color was troubling, so I hope that this attitude has changed in the last 7 years.  Honestly it's really hard for me to imagine a lot of SBC folks (although I know there are some diamonds in the rough) reading something like Divided by Faith or Reconciliation Blues and truly allowing that tough criticism to speak to them.  Perhaps I'm not being very fair here.  If so, I hope that the SBC will prove me wrong in the end, and show that their motivation behind this diversity measure is not simply to fill empty pews.

Now that they're open to intentionally encouraging diversity, I'm going to naively also hope that, in another 7 years, Southern Baptists will have changed their minds about keeping women from the pulpit...

Consumerism reinforcing gender stereotypes

My last post touched on the idea that consumerism is a force in promoting gender stereotypes.  Crystal Smith, the author of The Achille Effect: What Pop Culture is Teaching Young Boys about Masculinity, posted an amazing word cloud created from toy ads.  She demonstrated how the vocabulary used in these ads aimed at children may reinforce the gruff, violent, Hot-Wheels-loving boy stereotype, and also the princess, pink ruffles, doll-loving girl stereotype.  Guess which one is for which gender:

 

 It makes me wonder what else ads are reinforcing - ideas about race or class perhaps?

Pink for the boys and blue for the girls

We picked up some bicycle training wheels for my stepdaughter last weekend, and we let her pick between the pink ones and the blue ones.  When she chose blue, my stepson, who is five, was so confused.  He kept asking why his sister chose blue instead of pink?  Why not pink??  We explained that it's okay for girls to like blue, just like it's okay if he wants something pink.  

Playing with these cultural ideas, that a color would represent a certain gender, reminded me that what makes us "masculine" or "feminine" is also driven by culture, not just biology.  During the recent uproar over a J. Crew ad that depicted a mother painting her young son's toenails pink, I found this Smithsonian Magazine piece that explores the history of children's clothing in the West: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

For centuries, both boys and girls would wear dainty white dresses up until the age of 6.  This stemmed from practicality more than anything - it was much easier to bleach white clothing.  It wasn't until just prior to World War I when pastel-colored children's clothing began to denote gender.  But even in 1918, a trade publication stated:

The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.

There was no consensus until the 1940's, when manufacturers and retailers helped reinforce the very opposite of the above: blue for boys and pink for girls.  As the Smithsonian Magazine article points out, even today--especially today--consumerism is the driving force in establishing beliefs about gender in children:

According to child development experts, children are just becoming conscious of their gender between ages 3 and 4, and they do not realize it’s permanent until age 6 or 7. At the same time, however, they are the subjects of sophisticated and pervasive advertising that tends to reinforce social conventions. “So they think, for example, that what makes someone female is having long hair and a dress,’’ says Paoletti.

Consumerism isn't the only factor.  Many evangelicals are in the business of promoting specific gender stereotypes.  Here is a great example from a Southern Baptist.  Blasting the J. Crew gender-bending ad, Katie McCoy wants Christians to "express our God-assigned genders in culturally appropriate ways."  Her article is a great example of Christians' uncriticially taking on cultural ideas of gender, conflating them with a "biblical" notion of gender.

The Hippie Housewife has a great perspective on this issue.  She points out that attempts to counter-balance the culturally-tethered ideas of gender (i.e. going "gender-neutral") ends up hyper-focusing on gender after all.  Her take on it is to let kids be kids:

There is also the other side of the same coin, where children who like things that don’t traditionally “match” their sex are held up as examples in the gender versus sex debate. Mothers pat themselves on the back for accepting their “cross-gendered” five year old, usually boys who like pink or want to wear dresses. And yet for the boy who hasn’t had it shamed or bullied out of him, it’s completely normal. Lots of boys like to dress up in princess dresses. It’s sparkly and bright and fun. It’s not gender exploration, it’s just childhood. Making a big deal out of – whether to encourage or discourage it – is entirely unnecessary.

I think there is a great deal of merit in allowing your children to choose their own activities, hairstyles, toys, clothes, etc, without regard to traditional gender lines. Absolutely. My boys play with cars and carry their dolls around in baby slings. My older one has only recently decided his favourite colour is no longer pink, but it's definitely still up there. He's absolutely insistent that he's going to be a Mommy when he grows up. It's not because he's "gender confused", it's because he identifies most strongly with me and wants to be able to have babies and breastfeed just like I do. He had hair longer than mine at one point, and is currently growing it out again because he wants it long. No big deal. He’s not gender confused, he just wants long hair. My aunt who teaches kindergarten often talks about the little boys who are so excited over all the pink princess stuff they get to play with at kindergarten – not gender confused, just enjoying the fun.

Photo credit

Immigration: Bringing out the disconnect in American Christianity

Fred Clark at Slacktivist linked last week to an Ethics Daily post about the immigration bill recently passed in Alabama.  The governor, who signed the bill into law, is a member of the First Baptist Church of Tuscaloosa.  One of the bill's sponsors is a member of another First Baptist Church, in Gardendale, AL. 

Recently, Roger Olson commented on a similar law in Oklahoma: "I would even go so far as to question the authenticity of the Christian faith of those who wrote the law."  To Olson, the fruit that was produced by Christians who support this law does not match up with the Bible's commands to welcome the stranger.  The Oklahoma law makes it a felony to transport or shelter undocumented immigrants, but allows emergency room medical personnel to provide life-saving medical aid.  The Alabama law goes even further, requiring schools to verify the immigration status of its students.

Clark is similar to Olson in his questioning of the authenticity of these lawmakers' Christian faith (and what about the Christians who sat on the sidelines in both Oklahoma and Alabama--and Arizona too?).  I can't go that far, as I don't feel it's my place to question whether anyone is a true Christian.  I can only examine myself.  As Streak said, I'm loathe to speak for God.  However, I do think it's a very valid and proper question to ask why those who claim to follow Christ would promote hate and simply fail to act like they follow him at all?

How is it that the largest denomination in the U.S., with such a strong presence in both Oklahoma and Alabama, and who places so much importance on "literally" believing the words of Scripture and reading those words every day, can allow these laws to pass?  I simply do not understand the disconnect here.  Which Bible are they reading?  

@na1alieNatalie Burris

When I love my neighbor as myself, am I supposed to ask for her immigration papers first?

I suppose with the SBC, and with many other Christians, it is completely acceptable to deny medical care, schooling, dignity, and economic opportunity to the most marginalized people in our country.  As long as these Christians intellectually assent to certain propositions of the faith they have constructed, any fruit they produce is irrelevant.  I will be the first to admit that my actions are woefully far from lining up with Jesus' teachings.  I struggle with loving God and loving others.  But a basic thing, such as offering aid to others, should be an action that we can all agree on as Christians.

It saddens me that my fellow Christians are allowing their American citizenship to overpower their status as a Christ-follower (I just gave my answer to my "why" question above).  Again, I'm certainly not one to judge, but it does confuse me to think that an active member of a church has no problem with explicitly and purposefully pushing more people into the shadows of our society.  This disconnect not only saddens and confuses me, but it just pushes me further away from identifying myself as a Christian.  

Photo credit

The "flash mob" hysteria

One of the biggest news items recently in Chicago is the increase of "flash mobs," or groups of young people who supposedly use social media to suddenly overtake and mug 1 or 2 victims.  If you read the news reports online (here is an example), the comments make me think we haven't progressed at all in the last fifty years.  Why do I continue to subject myself to reading comments on news websites, and why do I feel the need to respond?  Well, I think that these comments tend to reflect a lot of people's beliefs about our society, so I often feel compelled to respond when I feel they are based on misconceptions and ignorance.

These flash mob incidents happen downtown or on the north side, and if you're not familiar with Chicago, these areas are generally more affluent and are populated by fewer African-Americans than the south side.  The suspicion is that black teens from the south side are coming up north to "prey on" white people with iPhones.  Most of the comment sections devolve into meta-critiques of the state of poorer neighborhoods with high crime rates who receive government assistance.  Many commenters reference the belief that people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps to better their environment so they don't have to resort to criminal activity.  

photo © 2008 David Ohmer | more info (via: Wylio)

Predictably, these same critics point out that they themselves didn't accept anything from the government, and ended up successful with no help.

Give me a break. These kinds of comments display complete ignorance of the structural forces that have kept entire groups from success for decades.  A quick example: I recently researched negative covenants for work, and a common restriction in deeds in certain areas was that no black people could reside in the property.  The discrimination was/is systematic and widespread.  

I don't mean that there is no room for personal responsibility in this debate, but it astounds me that successful middle- and upper-class people think that they "made it" based on their sheer will and personal responsibility alone.  About three years ago I linked to a little story from a progressive radio program, but I find it remains very relevant today: Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican. 

Guess what?  You didn't die from cholera because government regulations ensure we have clean water.

You had access to vaccines as a child, because the government has taken public health seriously.

You have vacation time, medical insurance, and workman's comp because liberals have lobbied for worker protection.

You can deposit your wads of hard-earned cash in a bank and trust that the FDIC will shut down the bank if things go awry.

And, probably what was a huge contributor to your success, your education was made possible thanks to below-market student loans, again thanks to the government.

No, you did not become successful on your own, with your iPad and your trendy Lakeview condo.  You are not inherently more moral or hardworking than southside Chicagoans.  Please stop calling these young people "rodents," "scum," and "freeloaders."  

I will admit, as I'm downtown two nights a week and walk alone after 9 pm to my train, this coverage has made me think it will be just a matter of time before I'm a victim.  But too often we forget that these incidents have been happening long before they became a media fad.  Why does it become a "big deal" when the violence occurs a few miles north, with lighter-skinned victims?  Unfortunately, the hysteria has completely ignored these structural, broader questions.

When sex takes over politics

If you missed Frank Schaeffer's Huffington Post article about the latest in a string of political scandals, I highly recommend you check it out here: Anthony Weiner: Metaphor for How Sexual Selfishness Destroyed the Left's Agenda.

photo © 2011 mario | more info (via: Wylio)

While I don't agree with everything that Schaeffer wrote, he does make a very valid point for those who disagree with the Right.  The Right has established the political talking points and have set the agenda. The Right's obsession with sex, or rather, ridding our country of gay people and outlawing abortion, has forced the Left to address these issues over and over again.  I've often criticized the Right (and the Religious Right) for focusing on homosexuality and abortion at the expense of other issues such as poverty, but I never quite realized that the same phenomenon was happening on the Left as well.  

I don't mean to diminish the importance of reproductive and LGBTQ rights.  In fact, I recently wrote about the importance of taking a stand on these deeply personal issues.  But surely we can find a way to keep two issues from dominating our political discussions.  We are dealing with two--or three?--wars, high unemployment, and an immigration crisis, among other things.  It would be great if those who truly care about working on these issues could, to use a certain political party's pet phrase, "stay the course." Instead, with each election cycle or call to prove political loyalties, the sexual issues take up the most space in the discussion.   

Any other thoughts on Schaeffer's provocative post?