natalie's narrative

I heart I Heart Huckabees

I just finished watching I Heart Huckabees.  It was weird but funny.  I loved the dinner scene with the Christian family and the Sudanese refugee!  "Jesus is never mad at us if we live with Him in our hearts."  Tommy Corn: "I hate to break it to you, but He is - He most definitely is."  If you ever want to watch an offbeat, philosophical film that skewers our society, I recommend this film.  The Shania Twain element was cracking me UP!

Political drama, snowstorms, books, and other miscellanea

A lot has been going on these past few weeks, so I've been too busy to even think about blogging... Corrupt Illinois politics have been at the forefront of the national media, I missed a final and spent 7+ hours in my car on the Eisenhour because of an ugly snowstorm (made the dean mad but of course took the exam at a later time!), and we moved to an itsy-bitsy apartment.

Moving to a smaller place has caused us to rethink how many possessions we have and how we spend our money.  We donated three giant trashbags of clothes before we moved, and one bag afterward.  I pared down my shoe collection and gave away over half of my books.  We just have too much stuff.  It was almost embarrasing, because I try to live simply.  In our new place, hubs and I both share a non-walk-in closet, and the only other storage space is a pantry.  So we've had to confront our accumulation of stuff.  I can totally understand how the growth of suburbia/new housing development and increasing square-footage of living spaces is linked to consumerism, debt, and environmental issues.  The more space you have, the more you're inclined to fill it with things--things that cost money and will eventually end up in a landfill somewhere.  Do we really need all this stuff?

Being on break from school these past few weeks means reading what I want!  Not that I don't love burying myself in 1,000-page casebooks, but it's been great being able to read things more in line with my interests.  I'm about to finish The Accidental American, which deserves a post of its own.  Although not a very well organized book, it does a great job of pointing out the double standard in U.S. immigration policy.  It also includes the most succint description of why people in Mexico have to move to the U.S.  Reagonomics.

I also started The Shock Doctrine, because I enjoyed author Naomi Klein's previous book, No Logo.  I'm not a head-over-heels Obama admirer, but I am seriously ready for Bush to leave.  I can't believe some of the things his administration got away with...I think we were asleep the past eight years!  

Here's to a corruption-free 2009, with less snow, less STUFF, and more enjoyable reading that challenges the status-quo!

Community economics

In Jesus for President, Claiborne and Haw discuss the way our consumerist, individualistic society may affect our ability to love our neighbor. Acquiring a lot of possessions, a car for each person, and “a house full of ‘my’ stuff purchased cheaply from China,” makes it more difficult to follow Jesus’ teachings (261). We become more worried about protecting our things—about theft, security, and getting even more—that we lose sight of loving our neighbors in need.

If a community focused on loving Christ and loving others shares resources among its members, it frees itself up to live out the gospel. Claiborne and Haw share the story of a group of farmers in Belize that has little wealth but a lot of co-operation—and creativity. When a robber broke into their homes, they responded by printing and circulating currency that is worthless to the national economy but useful to them, and they built this robber a home once he was released from prison. Such a communal act of deterrence and forgiveness wouldn’t be possible outside of a community setting. And since they don’t store up treasures on this earth, they don’t have the temptation to kill those who intrude (261). They can truly pray the Lord’s Prayer, “…as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Within our individualism and greed, we expend energy protecting our houses built on sand, while this farming community lives “free from the economic fear of being toppled by the enemy.” Free from fear, they can aim their focus outward to redeeming the enemy (261). A great quote from the book: “You cannot follow Jesus socially (in relation to your enemy) if you are not following Jesus economically” (261).

I was immediately reminded of the mess the U.S. is in, what with our “homeland security” and post 9/11 debacles. According to Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change, the U.S. has about half of the world’s wealth, while only comprising 3% of the world’s population. So here we are hoarding our assets, while continuing to build up our military. The U.S. military is exponentially bigger than that of any other countries, and we have hundreds of bases all over the world. 

It’s evident we’re pretty big on protecting ourselves and our wealth. If anyone so much as threatens us (by stockpiling “weapons of mass destruction” that we sold them in the first place, for example), we will pre-emptively invade their country, no matter how miniscule their military forces. While expending a lot of our resources on “defense” ($550 billion a year), our leaders urge us to continue shopping. George W. Bush has even uttered the words “I encourage you all to go shopping more.” Keep consuming, or else the terrorists win…

Our national situation is a great example on a larger scale of how hard it can be to love your neighbor when you put yourself and your possessions first. It would be difficult to prevent the 16,000 children from dying from hunger-related causes each day when $550 billion goes toward protecting ourselves. And although I recognize the problems with security-driven things such as living in a gated community, I still want to save up for things like a trip to Europe or a MacBook Air instead of focusing on others’ needs and creatively subverting the status quo. The gospel, and trying to follow Jesus economically and socially, challenges me on the most basic level as well: that I have to think critically about choices and systems that I didn’t even know existed before.

Dualism and the environment

McLaren's Everything Must Change includes a great quote from Wendell Berry (from his book What Are People For?) about the church and our treatment of the environment:

...the churches, which claim to honor God as the "maker of heaven and earth," have lately shown little inclination to honor the earth or to protect it from those who would dishonor it….The organized church comes immediately under compulsion to think of itself, and identify itself to the world, not as an institution synonymous with its truth and its membership, but as a hodgepodge of funds, properties, projects, and offices, all urgently requiring economic support….If it comes to a choice between the extermination of the fowls of the air and the lilies of the field and the extermination of the building fund, the organized church will elect—indeed, has already elected—to save the building fund. […] No wonder so many sermons are devoted exclusively to “spiritual” subjects. If one is living by the tithes of history’s most destructive economy, then the disembodiment of the soul becomes the chief of worldly conveniences” (141-142).

Many Christians have a disembodied theology that separates the spiritual from the physical, placing more importance on the spiritual. “Saving souls” is of utmost importance, while fighting poverty doesn’t get as much attention. I do think more churches are broadening their focus to include the “physical” issues such as poverty and homelessness, but perhaps years of dualistic thinking have already taken their toll. If we consist of nothing more than souls that will eventually “be extracted like a Hostess Twinkie from its cellophane wrapper either at death or at the end of the world,” why should we care about wellness or our physical health? (138). If we eventually get to start over with a new earth, why care for the one we have right now? 

McLaren calls this phenomenon the “disembodiment of the soul” (142). He points out: “When we stand outside our bodies and the creation in which they participate, we feel liberated from creaturely restraint, liberated from all duty as embodied, environmented creatures” (142). Actually placing ourselves within our environment, our physical location, and then thinking about our place theologically would have to result in some radical changes.

If I’m to be a participant in God’s ecosystem, thus a good steward of the resources She has blessed us with, I need to think about the extent to which my lifestyle harms the earth. This has been a challenge for me, just starting out and living on my own. Everything really must change when I start thinking about reducing my impact on the environment…it gets overwhelming! I think that’s where community should come in, so as a people we can articulate what this type of lifestyle entails. We seem to have the spiritual disciplines down—or at least plenty of books have been published and sermons preached on this issue. Why not incorporate a more embodied, holistic view of the Gospel, one that addresses our output of plastic and paper, or our use of water? Sometimes I think my generation of Christians is more interested in that than the building fund…

*Sigh of relief*

We US Americans no longer have to worry about Matthew 19:24! From The New York Times Magazine's "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony."

Church as countercommunity (more on empire)

“In the face of an empire that rules through military and economic control, what is the shape of a community that serves a ruler who brings reconciliation and peace by sacrificial death rather than military might? If the empire elevates economic greed and avarice into civic virtues, while Paul dismisses such a way of life as idolatrous, then how does a Christian community shaped by Paul’s gospel live its life in the empire?” (61)

Those are questions from Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire that I’ve been wrestling with for quite some time. Ever since I took a History of the Middle East class and grew very familiar with Central American history through studying Spanish lit, I’ve become uncomfortable with my participation in an unjust empire. Living in a country that has been driven by the “progress myth,” too, I have often wondered how our faith is affected by neo-colonialism and capitalism.

Brian McLaren, in his book Everything Must Change, discusses “framing stories.” These are powerful stories that we tell ourselves, and they shape the way we live. The framing story of US Americans is that increasing wealth and security is good, and our foreign and economic policy decisions are based on this framing story. Walsh and Keesmaat, the authors of Colossians Remixed, remark that this progress myth legitimizes our lifestyle (62).

Just as the Roman Empire in the time of the early church enjoyed “Pax Romana,” we today are the beneficiaries of “Pax Americana.” (It is not a true peace, given that the cost is violent loss of life or oppression in any other part of the world—or even forgotten neighborhoods here.) Pax Americana is our “imperial mythology,” possessing a “clear distinction between good and evil and its self-righteous and aggressive foreign policy” (62). Christians are supposed to tell a story that is an alternative to the American framing story that promises to save us through economic success, homeland security, and global control—or, um—making sure everyone else is practicing democracy.

Walsh and Keesmaat want to tell the story beginning with the Israelites, since this ancient people also faced empires. Who God called them to be could be a great lesson for the church today. Wouldn’t it be amazing to see the church live out the following alternative?

“Israel is called to image a counterreality in a countercommunity. While the empire is frantically caught up in the management of production and consumption, Israel is called to a Sabbath keeping that acknowledges the gift character of its life in the land. And while the empire is sustained on the backs of slaves and an economics of oppression, a sabbath-keeping Israel images its God by caring for the poor, the stranger and sojourner, the widow and orphan. The care of the marginalized—those who have no standing ground in the community—is antithetical to the constant striving for power, dominance and hierarchy that characterizes the empire. Israel is called to be an alternative socioeconomic witness to the empire” (66-7).

Foucault and the church

I'm reading the chapter in James K.A. Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism about French philosopher Michel Foucault’s thesis that power is knowledge. Smith relates this idea to our current society and church. Foucault performed case studies of what he calls disciplinary mechanisms, such as prisons and hospitals, which have all-knowing, all-seeing, insidious power. The same could be said for the influential shaping forces in our culture, such as capitalism and--capitalism's driving force--consumerism.

The scary thing is that the end goal of the disciplinary mechanism of capitalism/consumerism sounds similar to Christianity’s end goal: to transform us. Like penitentiaries in Foucault’s case study, our consumerist culture is a ubiquitous “apparatus for transforming individuals” aimed at forming knowledge within the individual. Foucault and Smith use words like “omnipresent” and “possessing wide-ranging powers” when describing disciplinary mechanisms. Do some of those descriptions sound a little familiar? 

Smith says that Christians can both agree and disagree with Foucault. American evangelicals’ initial reaction, however, since they have been so affected by classic liberal notions of self, are to agree wholeheartedly with Foucault’s rejection of disciplinary mechanisms. These forces suppress individual freedom, and many evangelicals celebrate individual freedom. Although conservative Christians criticize theological liberalism, Smith says they have “unwittingly adopted notions of freedom and autonomy that are liberal to the core” (99). Smith remarks: “We don’t want denominations to tell us how to run our churches, and we don’t want churches to tell us how to run our lives” (99-100). He goes on to say that “freedom is an idol of the contemporary church” (100). The reason we can agree should not stem from any encroaching-upon of the self, but rather we should affirm that harmful disciplinary mechanisms should be resisted.

Christians should disagree with Foucault, though, because a blanket rejection of all disciplinary mechanisms is not necessary. The Gospel is a shaping force, a form of disciplinary mechanism, albeit more powerful than capitalism or any institution. Christians are indeed called to conform, but instead to “an alternative conformity” transforming and renewing ourselves into Christ’s image (101). Romans 12:2 takes on a powerful new meaning. 

Capitalism and consumerism want to transform us into “economic animals whose primary end is production and consumption,” while other disciplinary mechanisms, such as our sex-saturated society, aim to “reduce us to sexual animals whose primary end is instinctual satisfaction” (102). The insidiousness and pervasiveness of marketing, which puts sexual, social, or even religious value on products, along with the truth claims that are covertly communicated in this whole process of making ourselves into good consumers, should be pointed out and resisted by the church (104). We are being formed into certain kinds of people by these forces in society, which right now look a lot more powerful than the church. In fact, many churches are capitulating to these disciplinary mechanisms, which is why a lot of churches seem to resemble entertainment/take-your-pick buffets these days. Smith ends the chapter with this:

“If our worship simply mimics the disciplinary practices and goals of a consumer culture, we will not be formed otherwise. Conceiving of the church as a disciplinary society aimed at forming human beings to reflect the image of Christ, we will offer an alternative society to the hollow formations of late-modern culture.” (107) 

I know this morphed into a horribly long and boring post that spoiled the chapter for anyone who hasn’t read the book, but it was a really complex section that I had to reread a few times and wanted to hash out by writing a summary. I also wanted to remember the quotes about freedom and the church, and blogging them makes it easy for me to find them later. The fact that we don’t want our churches telling us how to live is definitely something to revisit!

Todd tagged me for a book meme that I'll try to get to tomorrow, too!

God and empire

I just started reading Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire, and wanted to share one of the many things that have jumped out at me. The authors, Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat, give a summary of the book:

The epistle to the Colossians, we are arguing, was an explosive and subversive tract in the context of the Roman empire, and it can be and ought to function in an analogous way in the imperial realities of our time. This letter proclaimed an alternative reality, animating a way of life that was subversive to the ethos of the Roman empire. (8)

Walsh and Keesmaat dialogue with a postmodern young person named William, who was raised in a Christian home but later left the faith. Having dabbled in international finance, William is now jaded and looking for something more, something beyond our consumerist McWorld, beyond our current-day empire of militarism and global capitalism.

William may want God, but the question is, which god does he want? And on whose terms will he accept this god? You see, the danger of wanting a god, without being willing to allow this god to speak in a voice that is radically other to our own voice, is that the god we end up with is like any other consumer product we take off the shelf. We would never be accountable before such a god, precisely because we never allow this god a voice that would actually call us to account. This consumer-friendly god, this god of postmodern construction, this generic off-the-shelf god would be no God at all. Rather, it would be an idol. And before idols like this the empire has nothing to fear, because ultimately such idols—such gods—are in the service of the empire. (34).

I’m excited to see the direction that Walsh and Keesmaat take with this, since I struggle with what it means to live Christianly in the confines of this American/global empire. I wonder how to truly listen to the voice that isn’t my construction or a result of my consumer choices. I wonder how to discern how much we know of God is a convenient creation that justifies our existence as citizens of an empire. How much have we rendered powerless the Gospel since it would force us to make difficult choices in our context of a powerful military and accumulation of wealth?

The exurbs

The Chicago Tribune has a feature on a young family that is moving out to the far western suburbs of Chicago, so far away that many have deemed these areas "exurbs." The comments section highlights the fact that mass migration to the suburbs and beyond brings up a few important issues: Are we thinking about our resources, such as water and oil, when we develop land that far out? The mother in the family featured has a 40+ mile, 2-hour commute each day to Chicago. Secondly, are we living above our means? The article states:

"From 1970 to 2005, the number of newly built homes with four bedrooms rose to 39 percent from 24 percent, according to the National Association of Home Builders. The average interior space went to 2,434 square feet from 1,500 square feet, a 62 percent increase. The percentage of homes having a two- or three-car garage went to 84 percent from 39 percent."

The article mentions that the average family size is getting smaller, although I wonder if that statistic takes into account growing immigrant families. Regardless of how big our families are, do we really need that much space?

I'll admit, it is truly difficult to find affordable housing in many parts of the Chicago area, which is pushing more people out west. I've heard that there will soon be a crisis in Chicago and surrounding areas, since housing costs are so high. I just wish there was a better, wiser alternative to the four-bedroom, 4-car garage cookie cutter homes and big box stores that are cropping up.

Loving God with our mind in a mindless age

I’m reading a book called The Culturally Savvy Christian by Dick Staub—had never heard of it before but it’s been mostly good so far. I don’t agree with some things that Staub says, but it does bring an incisive critique to both US American culture and evangelical Christian subculture.

Staub draws from the Biblical theme that every human is created in God’s image; we have intellectual, creative, and relational capacities. Therefore, our culture and faith’s superficiality will not truly satisfy us. What are we to do in the face of a “Christian community that has degenerated into an intellectually and artistically anemic subculture,” while the general public pursues “mindless, soulless, spiritually delusional” things? Staub notes that thoughtful Christians may feel trapped between a “popular culture attempting to build art without God and a religious culture that believes in a God disinterested in art” (xi). It is very similar to Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, but a critique of American culture is included along with the critique of evangelicalism. It would be weird, anyways, to think of Mark Noll throwing in mentions of “Fight Club” and weed in his books!

Since we are made in the image of God, we are not being fully human if we do not fulfill these capacities that God has granted us and that Jesus has redeemed for us. Staub quotes Christian art historian Hans Rookmaaker: “Jesus did not come to make us Christian; Jesus came to make us fully human” (xv). To be fully human is to utilize what God gave us and to intentionally involve ourselves in our community. We’re commanded to love God with all of our minds and to love others, but this can be a challenge in our consumerist, shallow, info-tainment society. In the middle of our high-speed internet, i-phones, plasma TVs, and the latest Britney/O.J./missing blonde woman drama, we are pulled away from important truths, such as:

“consumption does not satisfy, that the differential between wealth and poverty is unjust, that our neighbor is in need, and that the appropriate human response to people in need is sleeves-rolled-up service, not simply watching” (7).

Plus, what does it say about ourselves if we know more about the personal lives of celebrities and politicians that the goings-on—or even suffering—of people in our own neighborhood, church, and family?

When I read this, I thought I was doing pretty well with avoiding the superficiality of our pop culture (okay, I do indulge in E! Entertainment Television occasionally, but whatever.) I mean, I read a lot, keep up with what’s going on in the world, and couldn’t care less about celebrity couples. I’ve realized the effects of our culture can run pretty deep, though. With the rise of television and the emphasis on visual images, we may have lost some pretty important conceptual tools. Staub cites E.B. White to illustrate that the visual may replace words: “TV has taken a big bite out of the written word. But words still count with me” (8). 

Words paint pictures of ideas, and these ideas in turn employ and engage our minds. Being immersed in a culture that devalues words will eventually make it harder for us to follow a line of thought, to reason, to make sense of complex ideas, to synthesize concepts. Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death, remarks: “An image-based society, on the other hand, dispenses with all these [reasoning, synthesizing] because images do not demand them. How much logical discipline does one need to recognize a picture?” (8).

Staub includes a telling quotation from the founding chairman of MTV: “What we’ve introduced is non-narrative form; we rely on mood and emotion. We make you feel a certain way as opposed to you walking away with any particular knowledge” (8). What you feel, sense, and see essentially replaces critical thought. 

So there’s some dangerous elements in our culture that we need to watch out for. What’s scary to me is that the church uncritically accepts many things from the broader culture. We as the church are not members of an intentional, shared-possessions community; rather, we are consumers who are marketed-to, just like in the broader culture. In the context of worship, images are important and are not a negative thing. But, if a church service appeals entirely to the visual and aural senses and resembles entertainment, how can the challenging, upside-down message of the Gospel get through? It would be difficult to preach “it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” when your church’s weekly budget exceeds $30,000 (I almost choked when I read that in a booklet—distributed by Willow Creek—that I’m using for a small group. I guess I contributed to that bloated budget by using the free booklet…). Those flashy, entertaining videos, brochures, lighting effects, etc. aren't cheap. It would also be difficult to preach the message of loving God with our mind when we have no challenge to do so from within the church.