Natalie Burris

What do we tell our little girls they can be when they grow up?

I had a unique opportunity on Friday night - I got to hear Stanford law professor Ralph Richard Banks speak about his controversial new book, Is Marriage for White People?.  While the main topic of his book is another post for another time, Banks mentioned something about gender roles I felt worth mentioning.

Banks remarked that rarely does our society tell girls growing up that they need to go to school and find a profession, so they can support their husband and children.  It's sort of odd to think of saying such a thing to a little girl or a young woman.  On the other hand, this is often the message we send to boys.

I was blessed with parents who encouraged me to be whatever I wanted to be - even a profession that would be considered "male."  However, I don't think that encouragement--either from family or from society in general--was framed in terms of making sure I could support my family.  Implicit in the notion of a woman developing a profession is that she can stop at any time to stay home with her children, while her husband continues working and providing, at least monetarily, for the family.  

I absolutely do not see anything wrong with women staying at home once they have children.  But, the reality is that a lot of women have become successful and have risen professionally, with plans to continue working even after having children.  Specifically in the African-American community, women are becoming lawyers, doctors, and other professionals at much higher rates than men.  This inevitably means that many women will end up as the higher earners, or even sole earners, in relationships.

Because of these implicit ideas about gender roles, and the reality that many communities face, it can become somewhat awkward or challenging if a wife is more "successful" professionally than her husband.  I have more schooling than my husband, and a friend from law school works while her husband (who also has less schooling than she does) stays at home to care for their children.  Does this mean our husbands failed to fulfill their roles as men?  Of course, I don't think so, but society and the things many tell their children growing up would say otherwise.

On a related note, given that today is Halloween, I wanted to share this ad I saw on Sociological Images.  Gendered Halloween costumes tend to pigenhole little girls as fairies, princesses, and ladybugs, while boy costumes allow for more job-related themes (although Batman and Harry Potter aren't "real" jobs!):

And though these aren't Halloween-themed images, these toys and the labels for children's suitcases also demonstrate the messages we send to little girls.  Girls are babysitters, while boys are scientists.  The boy's suitcase is labeled "pilot," but the girl's is simply "pilot's assistant."  So girls can't be scientists or pilots too?  

Observations from detention court

For a class requirement, I recently observed detention court in Chicago.  I wanted to share my thoughts on this often unknown aspect of our immigration system.

The courtroom's location itself seemed telling.  Detention court is in the basement of the federal building, and no one is allowed to enter unaccompanied.  After I waited for a security guard to escort me, I was greeted with a bare hallway that leads to two nondescript, tiny courtrooms.  Though deportations are initially determined at the administrative level, which is lower on the hierarchy than federal district courts, no one would ever imagine this area holds a court that makes life-changing decisions.

Based on the Obama administration's recent mandate, some immigrants without criminal backgrounds are generally not subject to deportation, so it appeared most detainees--all men--were present because of criminal offenses.  However, Matt Soerens has pointed out a study by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") that reveals only 5.6% of detainees each year, as of October 2009, have been convicted of a violent crime. 

Immigration statuses were mixed - some had green cards, while others had crossed the border without papers.  This means the immigrants had committed a crime independently of immigration laws.  Through this crime, Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") determined the immigrants were now subject to deportation.

Out of the dozen cases I observed, only two immigrants were represented by counsel.  Both of them were white European immigrants, while the remaining detainees were from Guatemala, Mexico, and Cuba.  Only one detainee--one of the Europeans--had what appeared to be a family member in the courtroom.  

All of the immigrants were in DHS custody.  They were handcuffed and wore orange jumpsuits.  The detainees were being held at two different locations, one of which was a county jail that received a $6,500,000 grant from DHS to build a federal detention facility.    

I noticed that, during the judge's questioning, several detainees were not from Illinois.  A few were from Kentucky, while one was from Florida.  Human Rights Watch noted in a recent study:

Detainees can be held for anywhere from a few weeks to a few years while their cases proceed. With close to 400,000 immigrants in detention each year, space in detention centers, especially near cities where immigrants live, has not kept pace. In addition, ICE has built a detention system, relying on subcontracts with state jails and prisons, which cannot operate without shuffling detainees among hundreds of facilities located throughout the United States.

As a result, most detainees will be loaded at some point during their detention onto a government-contracted car, bus, or airplane and transferred from one detention center to another: 52 percent of detainees experienced at least one such transfer in 2009. And numbers are growing: between 2004 and 2009, the number of transfers tripled. In total, some 2 million detainee transfers occurred between 1998 and 2010.

An astonishing number of detainees in the study, 3,400, were transferred more than ten times.  I assume the Kentucky and Florida detainees were in Illinois because of these types of transfers, which I imagine causes a hardship for their family and legal counsel, if any.

I also noticed a couple of detainees asked to be released with ankle bracelets, as they had families here.  In fact, one detainee had been in the U.S. for twenty years.  The judge advised she could not make the decision to allow ankle bracelets; rather, it is up to DHS.  Soerens, in discussing the costly effects of keeping immigrants in custody, pointed out that ankle bracelets can cost taxpayers as little as $10 per day, while detention runs $122 on average.

The judge appeared to be compassionate.  She asked the detainees questions that would indicate whether they had a chance to avoid deportation.  She also agreed to lower some immigrants' bail, taking into consideration their less-severe crimes and their families' financial status. However, one sympathetic judge is simply swimming upstream in a broken, overwhelmed, and outdated system.

As for my personal reaction, I admittendly had mixed feelings when I learned of the serious nature of one detainee's crimes.  It was hard for me to feel compassionate toward the fact he lacked legal counsel and would soon be deported.  However, for the most part, I was extremely saddened by what I observed.  I felt physically sick to my stomach, and couldn't stop thinking about the detainees' plight for the next several days afterward.

In the federal immigration context, immigrants are not afforded all of the precious, rights-preserving guarantees of our Constitution, such as the right to counsel.  The main reason is that immigration violations are considered civil matters, rather than criminal, so detainees do not receive  all of the usual criminal protections. 

Even if all the detainees had committed disturbing crimes, it would still bother me that a segment of our population does not have the same rights as U.S. citizens, despite having families here and having made vital economic contributions.  It does not sit well with me that people who have deep roots in our country are caught up in a system that lacks sufficient legal counsel, does not afford full Constitutional protections, and is increasingly driven by entities that receive profitable government contracts.

It seems hardly anyone wants to pay attention to a couple of courtrooms relegated to the basement, unwelcoming to visitors by design.  As a Christian who cares about vulnerable populations, I have to count immigrants in deportation proceedings as one of the most vulnerable - yes, even those who have committed crimes.

Any thoughts?  Should immigration violations be considered criminal rather than civil proceedings?  Is it misguided to have compassion for immigrants who have committed crimes?

Are words directly knowable? Is "the other" so easily dismissed?

Chapter 3 of Christian Smith's The Bible Made Impossible describes how we got to biblicism today.  Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield, two American theologians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, ended up influencing modern evangelicalism with their "objective" views about knowledge.

One view, Scottish common-sense realism, believes humans can directly grasp the meaning of what we perceive - whether it be objects or words.  Words are directly knowable and directly represent objects and ideas, which our minds can know with certainty.  Another view, Baconian inductive-empiricism, is similar - it's gathering "natural specimens" as facts and arranging them to reach an understanding.

These contrasted with the subjective enlightenment idea that the "knower" has authority to define the "known" through his or her individual perceptions.  Hodge and Warfield took their views for granted when they discussed theology: the Bible contains all the facts we need to know, and our job as Christians is to collect and order them.

Smith points out a contradiction, because the Calvinist Hodge strongly believed in the fallen human nature, which should have prevented him from thinking we can simply know the Bible's propositional truths directly, without bias.  Although inconsistent with Calvinism, this framework thrived because it was a great weapon against the encroaching theological liberalism.

Smith acknowledges he pulled from Hodge and Warfield's least-sophisticated works, but only because such weaker ideas shaped later evangelicals.  I agree, as I see that many modern evangelicals still believe the Bible's truths are objectively evident.  They portray challenges to their "objective" view as a dangerous relativism and a capitulation to postmodernism. 

As is clear to most of us, Hodge and Warfield's views are problematic: "Perception, knowledge, science, and language do not function in the real world the way these theories say they do."  Language and words are highly contextual, ambiguous, complex, and can mean many things at once.  

"Facts" are not obvious, unmediated entities.  Instead, we actively interpret and mediate what end up as facts from various possibilities and meanings.  "All interpretations are also shaped by the particular historical and cultural locations and interests of the interpreters."  

The naive view that words are directly knowable has long been abandoned by informed thinkers.  Why, then, aren't more biblicists worried their interpretive framework might be problematic?  Smith describes their attitude as "unperturbed confidence."  This is when Smith's sociological expertise proves valuable, as I doubt a theologian or biblical scholar could provide such an astute assessment. 

Smith has several theories, but my favorite is his depiction of the strong, close, social networks among biblicists as a force in keeping biblicism alive, in spite of glaring problems.  Living in a relatively small, homogeneous, comfortable subculture means your inconsistencies will rarely be challenged.  Lest Smith come across as elitist, he notes even the most cosmopolitan form these close social groups.  However, research shows evangelicals in particular tend to create more homogeneous environments compared to other U.S. Americans.  

Such strong group identity means that differences with outside groups become magnified.  Vilifying "the other" means biblicists ceased to

understand the other's reasons, perspectives, and beliefs, or to honor them as fellow believers and come to a deeper understanding and perhaps resolution of differences.  The point, rather, is to remain on guard from being contaminated by the out-group or allowing them to grow in influence.  And in that process the other is very easily turned into an impersonal, two-dimensional caricature.  Out-groups are reduced to an abstract "them" whose beliefs are abridged into a few bullet points of greatest disagreement, which need not actually be taken seriously on their own terms but rather simply need to be refuted and discredited as a means to validate the views of one's own group.

Under this rubric, "the other" becomes easily dismissed.  Before even coming to the table, your group has decided "the other" is already wrong.  Not compromising or agreeing to a wishy-washy ecumenism is a badge of honor.

Any thoughts?  Is Smith's portrayal of biblicists fair?

Racism is not only a heart issue

Unless I have bad intentions today, I shouldn't have to pay for the church's racist past.

I wasn't even alive during the slavery and Jim Crow eras, so what do I personally have to do with racial reconciliation today?

If everyone would repent of their sins and stop acting racist, we would see racial reconciliation.

Racism is a heart issue - so why should the church force racial reconciliation?

I often hear these thoughts expressed about racism.  Many white U.S. Christians see racism only as an individual moral failure, but it's also a social failure, for which we all share responsibility.

A common definition of racism is limited to racial slurs or white supremecy.  This article illustrates many white people's definition of "racist."  A professor asks her white students to raise their hands if they're racists.  An awkward silence follows, and no one moves.  However, when she reframes the question as, "You've never had a negative thought based on racial bias?" hands slowly rise.

If we're all honest, no one would continue to insist she or he is free from negative racial thoughts.  But even if we all had perfect attitudes, racism persists in the church without purposefully racist individuals.  Though our intent is no longer racist, the effects still are.

You personally do not have to be racist.   Our system works so that, if you participate in the system, it will be racist on your behalf.  

Racism is not only a heart issue.  Individual repentance isn't the last and only step - it's the first step.  Using the Southern Baptist Convention as an example, publicly apologizing for racist acts and electing a person of color as vice president of your denomination are great first steps.  However, it doesn't mean racism is no longer an issue in your institution.  

Systemic racism, without intentional individual action, is highlighted in Efrem Smith's review of John Piper's book, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian.  I'm not reviewing a book I haven't read, but wanted to share Smith's portrayal of Calvinism as Eurocentric.  Although Smith applauds this well-known evangelical for tackling racism, he takes issue with Piper's solutions:

Dr. Piper presents Calvinism as the theological framework for living into racial reconciliation biblically. I must respectfully disagree with him. He states in the book that Jesus deals with ethnocentrism, but then presents a theology rooted in Eurocentric ethnocentrism as the solution. In Dr. Piper’s commitment to racial reconciliation he can’t just have great love for theologies developed by European men. By presenting Calvinism this way, he actually goes against what he is writing about. Structural racism exists in the church in the United States because theology is dominated by White theology. 

[...]

Piper also only offers politically conservative and Republican solutions to dealing with structural racism.

Smith's critique teaches us that theology is not race-neutral.  Theology is rooted in a specific context, which includes race.  Whites may not think our views about church have a racial influence; rather, we consider them race-neutral.  Imposing what we consider harmless, raceless ideas on people of color at the foot of the cross, then, is problematic.

Reformed theology has not been race-neutral in the U.S.  Many Calvinist missionaries paved the way for white settlers and the U.S. government to take lands from its indigenous inhabitants.  (Here's an example out of Hawaii.)

Of course, most Calvinists today are not white supremacists and do not intentionally use their theology to oppress people of color.  Smith notes some people of color are Reformed.

The problem arises when Calvinism is viewed as race-neutral and the only proper form of Christianity.  Calvinism is inherently individualistic, so it's understandable that Piper and others omit structural reconciliation.  But, racism is too complex for solutions to come only from a homogeneous subculture like white Calvinists, who gravitate toward well-meaning but one-dimensional solutions.

Soong-Chan Rah has discussed white evangelicals' individualistic view of racism.  Again, no one considers themselves racist, so Rah frames racism as one ethnicity having hegemony over another.  Thus, in racial reconciliation contexts, elevating white theology is itself racist, albeit unintentional. 

Rah and Smith's critiques remind us we cannot frame racism solely as a heart issue.  It is not enough for individual Christians to repent of their sins and expect marginalization of people of color to stop.  Even after repentance, if white Christians go with the flow, sticking with what's natural and comfortable, racial reconciliation will not occur.

Networking is another example of structural racism.  In the gender context, I see prominent evangelical men conversing with, linking to, and promoting only other men, even if they self-identify as egalitarian. (Although Scot McKnight provides space on his widely-read blog to women, which is nice.)

Similarly, many white Christians promote and network exclusively with other whites.  It does not occur to them to reach outside their comfort zones to connect with people of color.  To extinguish systemic racism, it takes intentional, structural-level, often uncomfortable efforts. 

European theology has made incredible contributions to North American evangelicalism, but omitting non-white theology is a form of racism, even if unintentional.  Institutional apologies help reconciliation, but it takes continual efforts to fight racism.  And, while repenting of racism in your heart is humbling, it's only the first step.  If white Christians are not willing to recognize structural racism and to listen to people of color, we might as well display Jim Crow-era "whites only" signs over our churches.

Credit - Second Photo

Why I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve

Although I'm not a scientist and have taken only one physical anthropology course, I feel compelled to share what I've learned about human origins.  In the same way complementarians tie traditional gender roles to a faithful reading of Scripture, I've seen some evangelicals assert that a truly serious reading of Scripture requires a belief in a literal Adam and Eve. 

I echo Peter Enns' recent criticism of Al Mohler's claim that the only way to respect the Bible and have a solid faith is to read Genesis literally:

I am writing [...] for the sake of those who are living with the consequences of what Mohler says they must believe–those who feel trapped in Mohler’s either/or rhetoric, that to question a literal interpretation of Scripture concerning creation puts one on the path to apostasy.

Driven by his precommitment to biblical literalism, Mohler leaves his audience with an impossible false choice between a Christian faith that must remain in intellectual isolation in order to survive and an intellectual life that has no place for Christian faith.

I consider myself a follower of Jesus and a serious reader of Scripture, so it's painful to be told I don't take my faith seriously because I do not believe Adam and Eve literally existed.  

To me, the fossil record shows Adam and Eve could not literally exist.  My brief summary touches on the gradual cultural and cognitive developments, because those may indicate where to place a literal Adam and Eve.  Here is an excellent, more in-depth interactive website from the Smithsonian.

"Hominids" are species after the last common ancestor of humans and living apes.  They walk upright, do not use their teeth as tools, and have bigger brains.  A "genus" is one taxonomical level above "species," and Australopithecus is the first hominid genus we know included species that developed tools.  First found in Kenya, they existed an estimated 4.2 to 1 million years ago, but show no evidence of culture.  Australopithecus even coexisted with our genus, Homo.

Homo appeared roughly 2 million years ago.  Homo habilis, discovered in Tanzania, were the first stone toolmakers.  Homo erectus were the first travelers beyond Africa.  Experts don't think they developed language, but evidence shows they cared for their elderly and weak.  

Early archaic Homo sapiens appeared about 500,000 years ago.  Their culture is more sophisticated, with structures, stone industries, and exploitation of natural resources.

Late archaic Homo sapiens, the last group before modern humans, in­cludes European and West Asian Neandartals.  There is evidence of flowers placed at burial sites.  However, language development is doubtful.  Interestingly, Neandartals lack descendants; they're an evolutionary dead end.  

Modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, appeared about 120,000 years ago, and I'm sure we're well aware of our own capabilities.

The line from the first hominids to modern humans is not clear, though.  The below "family tree" notes the transformation wasn't linear, but rather a multi-faceted, meandering process.  Tracing a direct line even within our own genus isn't even possible yet.

Where do we place Adam and Eve?  They could be Homo habilis, the first species to make stone tools.  However, there's little evidence of advanced culture.

What if they were Homo erectus,  with brain size comparable to modern humans?  But, Homo erectus didn't develop language, and this disregards earlier hominids who were toolmakers.  Or, Adam and Eve could have been Neandertals, but Neandertals were an evolutionary dead end.  However, do their burial rituals mean they had an understanding of death?

If we designate Adam and Eve as Homo sapiens sapiens, our species, what about Neandertals and the early archaic Homo sapiens, the latter having structures and stone industries?

It's hard to pinpoint a literal Adam and Eve in the fossil record, as cultural and cognitive abilities emerged gradually.  Culture does not suddenly appear; rather, as we have seen, it develops over time.

Did God suddenly infuse a species with His image?  With gradual fossil evidence, some lines seem arbitrary.  Or did the capacity to bear God's image develop gradually like culture?  What about those on the continuum? 

Another problem is that Genesis 4:1 says, “Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.”  The first evidence of agriculture was around 8000 B.C.E., and genetic changes required to domesticate plants took 2,000 to 3,000 years.  

If Cain were the first agri­culturalist, this leaves too little time for all humans to be Adam and Eve's descendents.  Also, based on the emergence of agriculture, Cain would have been alive 10,000 years ago, yet modern Homo sapiens appeared 120,000 years ago.  What about those before Cain?  And was his wife, also mentioned in Genesis 4, created ex nihilo?

A literal reading of Genesis 2:19 brings another impossibility.  Don­ald Miller, in Searching for God Knows What, estimates Adam named up to 50 million species:

It would have taken nearly a year just to name the species of snakes alone.  Moses said that Eve didn't give birth to their third child till Adam was well into his hundreds, which means they would have had Cain and Abel some thirty or so years before, which also means either it took Adam more than a hundred years to name the animals, or he and Eve didn't have sex for a good, long, boring century.  

How do Christians handle problems in pinpointing a literal Adam and Eve, like fossil records, agricultural history, and naming millions of animals?  What are the theological implications?

I don't have a clear answer, and honestly it's often unsettling.  However, I do know that all truth is God's truth, even (especially) science.  I trust God reveals Himself through nature.  I cannot continue to insist Adam and Eve literally existed in the face of glaring logical inconsistencies and a continuum that raises disturbing moral issues.  I wish literalists would be willing to engage with me and others in this camp, rather than summarily label us heretics.

Any thoughts?  Anyone know why every depiction of Adam and Eve is a lily-white couple, even though evidence shows they probably had very dark skin?  Interesting...

Credit - First Photo

Credit - Second Photo

Credit - Third Photo

Even in October...

Can I just get really honest with you for a moment?  I don't feel comfortable sharing things like this, because I know there's a deadly famine and millions of women are being sex-trafficked and who am I to complain about anything...

But I'll admit it.  October is a hard month.

This is supposed to be the cozy, pumpkin-patch-and-cider, enjoy-the-pretty-autumn-leaves time of year, right?

Since losing Dad, October is different now.

It's his birthday month.  There's less sunlight -  the days are getting shorter.  The holidays and the cold start creeping in.

Anyway, I look through Dad's blog when the grief hits.  (This time, I am struck by how funny he was. Joking about how fat butts require longer needles, or getting high-speed internet and finally being able to do two things at once online!)

For Dad, his hard month was April.  He even wrote a post about it.  And like usual, his words reach through time and comfort me today:

I know as a Christian I should be writing inspirational messages of how Christ can overcome, and this I do know. But right now I feel like I am in the valley. And I am pretty sure I don't doubt God, maybe I am doubting myself, like the preacher said Sunday. Sometimes we suffer because we are human, it is part of life. Now that I think about it God has always been faithful (even though I may suffer), as well as my community of believers (friends) who has been faithful......... even in April.

 

Who gets to be the arbiter of gender roles in the church?

I'm looking forward to Rachel Held Evans' book based on a year-long project of following Scripture's instructions to women.  Some with traditional views of biblical womanhood have criticized the book, even though it's not yet available.  While I don't believe time travel is possible yet, some critics have brought up arguments that are common when defending traditional gender roles:

No serious effort was being made, as far as I could tell, to truly translate into our day and time something that may have made perfect sense to people living in those conditions 3,000 years ago but leaves US scratching our heads. And so Rachel camps out, constructs sashes, and stands in front of the city limit signs with a placard saying what a great guy her husband is -- because the Bible supposedly says she should. I am left scratching my head at what anyone is supposed to learn from such antics.  

A Baptist Press article I've previously linked to notes, "Today's young men need to hear the words of King David to Solomon, 'Be strong, and show yourself a man,' (1 Kings 2:2) and today's young women need a generation of modern-day Abigails to emulate (1 Samuel 25)."

The article also refers to John Piper, who says a godly man is "sensitive to cultural expressions of what is considered masculine, and mature masculinity adapts its behavior to fit what is culturally masculine."  It's clear most complementarians acknowledge that Scripture must be translated to our current setting. 

However, why do many Christians feel they have a copyright on what these modern cultural expressions look like?  How can they have so much certainty when defining gender roles?

For instance, Al Mohler unequivocally stated, "Those who believe that the Bible is indeed the inerrant and infallible written revelation of God are obligated to perpetuate and honor the pattern of leadership ordered within the text of Scripture."  And the Unlocking Femininity website states, "Because God is good and only does good, if we believe that hierarchy and patriarchy are evil, then we’re saying something about the character of God."

Complementarians tie traditional gender roles to a faithful reading of Scripture, so to question them is tantamount to questioning the Bible and God's goodness. Interestingly, it is exclusively male denominational leadership, seminary graduates, and pastors who determine these non-negotiable gender roles for the North American church.

I wonder whether there has been thorough reflection on biblical definitions of gender roles translated into today's terms.  I wonder whether North American cultural norms have been uncritically adopted, which then gets clothed in biblical language, immune from criticism as it's been equated with Scripture itself.

Perhaps holding up a sign at your town's entrance that praises your husband is not required of Christian women today.  I doubt that is Evans' point.  Hardly anyone thinks we should literally follow every biblical command to women, i.e. wearing headcoverings during prayer or being saved through childbearing.

The question then becomes, what does the role of biblical women and men look like in 2011 in North America?  And who in the church gets to decide these roles?

Learning about non-North Americans has revealed gender as a cultural construct. Biology still plays a role, but what is considered feminine here is often not the case outside North America.

I've shared details before from ethnographic studies.  Among the Mur­ik of Papua New Guinea, women and men are allowed to show aggression. Generally, Indonesian men are viewed as emotional and full of passion.  Women are thought to be more stable, rational thinkers who handle business transactions.

Looking briefly outside our North American context, we learn there is no one, universal definition of gender roles.  Biblical womanhood is expressed differently, depending on the church's cultural context.  Allowing husbands a "trump card" and barring women from leading men may seem absurd in some non-North American cultures.  

Although not all complementarians would agree, Mark Driscoll has said Paul's instructions resulted from women being "unfit," "more gullible and easier to deceive than men."  Driscoll also frequently describes women as emotional. 

Or, when North American Christians oppose anti-bullying measures because they eliminate gender roles, these Christians fail to explain why certain characteristics are male and others female, and to ground this explanation beyond our particular culture's assumptions about gender.  

I know a culture-less reading of Scripture isn't possible.  But perhaps we should more thoroughly look at how and why women and men appear to be different in our culture, and why they should act certain ways to be good Christians.  Perhaps the church should stop painting women and men with such broad brushstrokes.

Rather than marginalizing those who do not fit the North American mold of femininity and masculinity and who have not conformed to particular roles, could the church community make room for them?  As Joy Bennett wrote in a great post over at Deeper Story, "just because a woman's strengths don't fit the typical female patterns doesn't mean she doesn't fit into the body of Christ."

I wish the church would take a closer look at our definitions of masculinity and femininity.  Are they informed more by North American culture than anything else?  Humility on all sides would also be helpful, as it's pretty bold to think your interpretation of gender roles is precisely what God commanded, and questioning this interpretation disrespects the Bible and God's character.

I am left scratching my head when biblical gender roles just happen to match up with traditional twentieth-century North American gender roles, and that one exclusive group has decided to be the arbiter of these roles.  Let's take a closer look (and stop reviewing books before reading them), shall we?

Credit - first photo

Credit - second and third photos

Rachel has apparently made little (if any) effort to figure out what the various commands she is supposedly implementing actually meant. No serious effort was being made, as far as I could tell, to truly translate into our day and time something that may have made perfect sense to people living in those conditions 3,000 years ago but leaves US scratching our heads. And so Rachel camps out, constructs sashes, and stands in front of the city limit signs with a placard saying what a great guy her husband is -- because the Bible supposedly says she should. I am left scratching my head at what anyone is supposed to learn from such antics. I will not be surprised if a number of people come away with their preconceptions confirmed about what an "outdated" book the Bible is -- and yet, what they will have read is probably not a serious analysis of the questions under consideration.

What does the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention have to do with immigration?

Find out at my guest post over at Undocumented.tv: 

The largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, boasts 16 million members today.  However, it was formed before the Civil War due to a split with northern Baptists over slavery.  Although they issued an apology in 1995 and have since resolved to promote racial and ethnic diversity within their leadership ranks, Southern Baptists found themselves on the wrong side of history for their past support of slavery.

Be sure to check out Undocumented.tv's excellent resources, as well.  The site is helpful if you've ever wondered how to respond to questions such as "Why don't undocumented immigrants just come here legally?" or "Aren't they hurting the economy?"

What's wrong with being a "girly-girl"?

A few months ago I wrote about a common practice in our culture to encourage women to smile and be cheery.  I also criticized the "baby voice" that many grown women use, and how these practices denigrate women.  We are not supposed to be emotionally intelligent, nuanced people.  Rather, we need to be pretty, entertaining, light-hearted objects for men.  

I've noticed that an intelligent woman I know, who graduated from a prestigious university, often "plays dumb."  I know this woman is smart.  However, when she is in conversation with men, she reverts to this "ditzy," silly, valley-girl persona.  

It irks me, because I know she is a sharp person. Sometimes I feel like a Debbie Downer because I don't understand why an otherwise mature, intelligent person would behave this way.  Why should it bother me?  Women who act "girly" like this make people (read: men) laugh, and it's just some light-hearted entertainment.  What's the problem?

I suspect I'm bothered by women who act this way because I know they can do better.  Such behavior is dehumanizing.  Smart women--or any woman--who act this way reinforce the idea that femininity = dumb, ditzy, giggly behavior.  

I recently discovered an excellent blog, What Tami Said.  Tami has criticized the sitcom, New Girl, which stars Zooey Deschanel, as well as the childlike, "cutesy" quirkiness of Deschanel herself.  Deschanel frames these critiques as an attack on "girliness," and thus an attack on femininity.  

But as Tami rightly observes, Deschanel's defense exposes the "the confusion of femininity with childishness. We are wondering at what it means for grown women to adopt perpetually pixie-like personas."  

Tami notes that extreme masculinity means that a man is still very much a man, but extreme femininity tends to paint women as girly and childlike.  Wouldn't it be odd to see hyper-masculinity as "boyish"?  Why then is "girliness" for grown women acceptable?  

If we portray femininity as a "womanly" endeavor, then stereotypically "masculine" features start to appear, such as strength, authority, and wisdom.  Oh no, that doesn't fit our culture's stereotype as a giggly, dainty girl!

Tami continues:

I suppose I do have beef with "girliness," not because of the implied femininity, but the implied submissiveness and dependence; because of how long it took for some women to prove that they are not children in need of care and for some other women, like me, to remind that we do need care as all human beings do. Perhaps I do reject a femininity that turns on being more "girl" than "woman," in part because "girliness" is accepted and abetted by a sexist society in a way that womanliness is not.

I recommend Tami's other post about Deschanel, because she has a great analysis of a racialized aspect of the persona Deschanel has created.  

That said, in spite of the critique of Deschanel, I have a couple of She & Him albums and enjoy them.  I'll just stick with her music for now...

People of color are not merely a backdrop...

A criticism of The Help is that it served mainly as a vehicle for a white woman's development as a writer, who also exposed racist acts.  The one who gets to take the most action is the white woman.  The focus is on Skeeter as the benevolent protagonist who helps tell the black housekeepers' stories.  The domestic workers end up as props for the white character's coming-of-age story.  (This film is also used, along with The Blind Side, as an example of the white-person-as-savior trope).  

I recently saw a preview for The Rum Diaries, which again featured white characters with people of color (Puerto Ricans) as the backdrop.  It's completely acceptable to write a novel or script about a character who grows as a person, but do any people of color get to star in these roles?

We see this in more than just the Bildungsroman genre.  Aydrea Walden, at the excellent blog Sociological Images, viewed several movie trailers to compare white and non-white roles.  Simply viewing a snapshot of a film shows that white characters get to do a range of things, like "be sweet, be naive, be oddly cool, progressive parents, live in a small town, live in a big city, parody Almost Famous, be hot, be regular looking," or "[e]xperience an existential crisis, wrestle, host and attend pool parties, have an iPad, discover their past, illegally adopt children."  You know, all kinds of normal or crazy behavior that a variety of films would exhibit.

However, people of color have very few options.  Walden observed that non-whites in the trailers participated in minor and passive roles, like "be threatening, drive a car."  "Play craps, provide and clarify exposition."  "Believe a stranger."  Or negative things, like being a felon, or as plot-movers, like setting up jokes for the main white characters.  

Of course, skeptics can think of films with nuanced characters of color, but the number of films with multi-dimensional, active stars of color (not just sidekicks to attractive white protagonists!) is disproportionate to the number of films as a whole.  The same goes for TV shows.  Consigning people of color to minor or negative roles is damaging.  This phenomenon also happens with women, of all colors.  Women are often portrayed as passive, naive, unintelligent, and one-dimensional characters who are only physically beautiful.  Walden remarks:

Whew! I was worried that I was going to see examples of myself in various and interesting situations. But luckily, I’ve been reminded that being of color is just not that interesting. Why else would of color folks be kept out of the canon of one of the most powerful industries going?

I’d say this was no big deal and that I and others might accept my blackness anyway. But the repetition of images (or the omission of images) is pretty much what the entire advertising industry is based on. So I guess a message is definitely getting across.

Unfortunately, the white North American church is not immune from this type of behavior, either intentionally or unintentionally.  Jamie Wright, who blogs at The Very Worst Missionary, recently explained how people living in poverty outside the U.S. (who also happen to be people of color...) end up as backdrops for the personal development of white Christians when said white Christians go on short-term missions trips.  

In response to criticism of short-term missions, many well-meaning North Americans are quick to point out that missions trips helped them realize they should be thankful for what they have, or that it was a watershed moment in their spiritual development.  Having gone on countless short-term missions trips as a teenager, I count myself as a changed brat person partly due to these experiences.  In the same way that telling a story to bring racism to light is a noble venture, I do not see missions trips as a necessarily bad thing.  But, as Wright so deftly points out:

As we send throngs of suburban teenagers on short-term missions every year to “learn a lesson”, we have a responsibility to ask ourselves; What are the poor kids learning from all of this?

We're teaching impoverished kids an important lesson, as well, when we wave our arm at a slum and say to our suburban brats, “Don't you see how blessed you are that you don't live here?!”

Poor people aren't stupid people. Poor people aren't less perceptive. Poor people aren't always pleased to be living what we deem “simple lives”. And don't you dare fool yourself into believing that poor people aren't making the exact same lifestyle comparisons you are.

[...]

When we descend upon the impoverished to improve our family's perspective, we may as well be saying to the mothers of these children, “Pardon me, I'm just gonna use your poor kid to teach my rich kid a lesson for a minute. I'll be out of the way in no time – Oh, and I'll leave you some shoes.... and a toothbrush.”

Walden and Wright's incisive, appropriately-sarcastic critiques should make us all think twice about images we see in advertising, Hollywood movies, and yes, even in church settings.  People who also happen to be low-income, or women, or of color, are people, not just backdrops to the development of the main, white character.  As a white woman, I've unwittingly engaged in this behavior, and have also taken the brunt of it.

Many white North American Christians enjoy railing against Hollywood for its liberal, sex-crazed, violent films, but wouldn't it be refreshing if the white Church took notice of another problem in the film industry and in life in general - relegating people of color to the margins?  I'm thrilled that Wright has been brave enough to speak out about this, so it's great to see some in the white Church take measures to stop such a damaging practice.  People of color are not merely props.  We all know this at some level - so how do our actions line up?