Natalie Burris

Mutiny! Or, what can pirates teach us?

London-based teacher and writer Kester Brewin recently released a quirky little gem of a book, called Mutiny! Why We Love Pirates, and How They Can Save Us. In only 165 pages, Brewin fits in medieval fiefdom, the colonization of the so-called "New World," Marxism, modern-day Somali pirates, copyright law, punk music, Jungian psychology, and Greek mythology. I didn't always agree with Brewin's take on the world, but his creativity and ability to translate sweeping topics into more easily understandable prose was impressive. 

Today, pirates have turned into a kitschy birthday party theme, but Brewin notes that an actual 18th-century pirate would be "shocked at the way in which his rebellion and revolt against and oppressive and wealth-hungry Empire had been castrated into spineless, meaningless nursery pap." 

The first mid-Atlantic pirates emerged in the 18th century in response to European monarchies' monopoly that blocked access to the "riches of the New World to any but the most privileged," and Brewin argues that pirates, in any shape or form, emerge at any time when economies become "blocked." Sailors who were forced to work for a pittance, then cast aside when they became disabled by the very work the monarchs charged them to do, joined forces to wreak havoc on the monarchies' work, threatening the imperial order. As a result, sailors-turned-pirates created egalitarian communities that offered fair wages and didn't simply cast aside the disabled or "other".

Piracy arises when a structure becomes unjust, "because it has taken something that should be the 'common property' of all people and locked it behind a pay-wall," and "refuses to share the spoils of wealth with those who have laboured so hard to create it." Pirates offer an alternative that speaks to our desire, our "human ache," for justice. Pirates threaten those in power, petrifying them, "because the laws that they have so carefully constructed to keep everyone in their right place fall utterly flat." And those who don't choose mutiny? Perhaps they believe the "narrative of their oppressors: that remaining law-abiding and dutiful would see them rewarded in heaven."   

What can pirates teach us about following Jesus? Brewin argues that we must play pirate to religion. Pirates are heroes who break the law, because "the law needs breaking if it is to be remade more justly." Jesus was, according to the law of his day,

a revolutionary heretic who was quite rightly prosecuted by religious authorities. The law had been broken, and law-breakers needed to face punishment if society was to hold together. But, quite explicitly, Jesus broke Jewish law in order to expose the fact that Jewish law was, in the hands of the Pharisees, broken.

The early church can be viewed as a community who declared mutiny against the religious powers, departing from Jewish orthodoxy. Early Christians entered the heretical waters of a faith that shared all things in common. But, Christianity transformed into the "religion of empire, and quickly settled in the easy throne of fattened calves, of comfortable robes and jewelry."

Brewin challenges us to ask: "what would it mean now to play pirate with the life that I have in the culture I am a part of, among the community I live in and within the power structures and working practices that I am embedded in?"

I don't agree with Brewin's characterization of the "New World," as it ignores and erases the existence of native peoples. Along those same lines, Brewin occasionally praised the U.S. "Founding Fathers," who in reality only played pirate on behalf of white, male landowners against the English. Overall, however, Mutiny! is a creative, dense little book that may spur you to mutiny, to "unblock" power structures, and to seek a more equitable way. 

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.

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?  

Review of the End of Evangelicalism - Part 4: The Christian Nation

This is Part 4 of my review/discussion of David Fitch's book, The End of Evangelicalism.  In case you missed it, here is Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

The third and final empty Master-Signifier of evangelicalism is the Christian nation.  Early evangelicals felt the mainline Protestant emphasis on the social gospel came at the expense of personal salvation, so these evangelicals became less involved in politics.  But, the 1970's and '80's saw a return to caring about politics and change now, despite the common pre-millenial dispensationalist belief that this world would just pass away.  A new narrative was formed: our founding fathers established America as a Christian nation, but starting in the 1960's, we have seen this foundation crumble, and America must return to her Christian ways.  America has stopped following the Ten Commandments, and if we don't repent, we will see destruction.  

Even if not all evangelicals hold to such a dramatic view, the Christian Right still sees nothing wrong with "reclaiming" America as a Christian nation.  Through voting for leaders who say they are Christian, they can eliminate abortion and gay rights, bring back prayer to the public schools, and chip away at the separation of church and state.

To Fitch, this reveals a weak ecclesiology: "we do not see the church as having a social reality of its own" (p. 106).  Christians are merely a collection of individuals, who have each made a decision for Christ, and must work to improve the moral fabric of our country through even more personal conversions.  The Christian nation is a symbol to rally around, keeping actual justice at a safe distance "so that we rarely have to 'get dirty' ourselves" (p. 107).  Rather than directly working on issues, evangelicals can just vote and lobby for "moral" legislation.

The Christian nation shows itself as a Master-Signifier when one asks what would really happen if Christians saw success with all of their political goals.  Would students who pray in schools do so because it is required, or are they somehow more Christian?  Would more people act like Christians if gay marriage were outlawed?  Fitch thinks that little is accomplished, but the idea of a Christian nation persists because it's easy to rally around and comes at less of a personal cost for many (wealthy) Christians.

Moving away from the political-legislative process, Fitch's discussion of capitalism is excellent.  Having organized around the illusory Christian nation, it becomes conveniently easy to ignore unjust economic realities.  In fact, evangelicals have baptized market capitalism, and the indivudalistic property rights that come along with it, as the most biblical system.  There is nothing wrong with hard work and individual responsibility, but evangelicals' embrace of market capitalism disregards structural problems and the effects of corporations/consumerism.  

Evangelicals can individually donate huge sums of money to the poor, but Fitch notes that this generosity is performed at a distance.  No one can question the gated communities, the comfortable suburban churches, and the isolation of the poor in many urban centers - look at all these individual monetary donations!  Fitch sees evangelicals saying "I will help the poor and be generous, but only on the terms of Christian capitalism that provide me protection, security, and distance from the poor when I need it." 

The CEO's who are devout evangelical Christians but plunder the retirement accounts of their employees are a great example of the contradictions that the Christian nation reveals.  One CEO was very involved in his church and even served meals to the homeless; however, he was convicted and served prison time for $7 billion greed and mismanagement of WorldCom.  Enron's Ken Lay was a Sunday School teacher.  Even with capitalists like these CEO's abusing the system, evangelicals will still support this economic system, because it allows them to be "economically independent."  This means that the gospel that shapes Christians is actually "justice done at a distance," because it doesn't touch the existing (exploitative) structures (p. 121).

I thought this chapter did a great job of pointing out the inconsistencies, especially economically, that evangelicals entertain with regard to living out the gospel in the public square.  The only thing I took issue with was Fitch's characterization of Jim Wallis and Sojourners as the flip side of the Dobson/Falwell coin.  I see Wallis as allying with other faith-based groups, or even the non-religious, to work toward a more just society - no one needs to convert or be forced to view specific Christian symbols or hear Christian prayers under Wallis' view.  But the Christian Right pitches a fit when manger scenes are removed or the phrase "Merry Christmas" is outlawed.  There is no room for other faiths because Christianity is the only right way.  Otherwise, this was an excellent critique of the idea of a "Christian nation."

Photo credit

A woman is not a "thing"

I recently found the blog Sociological Images, which always delivers a great, eye-opening read.  Last week, one of the contributors deconstructed an email advertisement for Spirit Airlines.  The ad encouraged customers to "Trade Up for a Better Flight Awards Card."  

The image accompanying the ad reinforces the twisted, damaging idea that women are just another thing, something that, of course, the male airline customer gets when he "trades up."  And, the ad sends the message that women will automatically be attracted to men who are wealthy and successful.  

 

Should church services be entertainment?

David Hayward, also known as the "Naked Pastor," shared a thought-provoking post last week: Are the next "new and improved" church ideas simply means to escape boredom?  He says:

There are those who need to experience constant change. They live in a perpetual state of narrowly escaping boredom. Some churches reflect this.

If you are spiritually content then you won’t crave novelty. If you don’t crave novelty then things will be much simpler. Some churches reflect this.

A recent article on the The Oklahoman's website features LifeChurch, a multi-campus megachurch.  Their promotional efforts are an example of many churches' constant need for the new and relevant. 

I've never attended a LifeChurch service, and I know LifeChurch is an easy target.  I don't want to make broad assumptions based on one news article and a handful of the pastor's sermons I heard at church camp.  However, I've seen this phenomenon in many other churches.  In fact, I saw it last week, in discussions with other student ministry leaders about low summer attendance.  One well-meaning suggestion to "get the energy level up" involved imitating another student gathering, which was deemed highly "successful."  (I disagree with equating high numbers with success in what it means to be the church and live out the Gospel.)  This high-attendance student ministry allows students to "get crazy," jump up and down, etc.

For some reason, the characterization of this ministry as successful simply because the students are entertained and converge in large numbers struck me as misguided.  In the same way, that a megachurch would devote 200 volunteers and several days to transform their lobby into a video game world just seems to miss the point and caves in to our culture's need for newer, bigger, better.  

The pastor of this particular "campus" said that "summer time is traditionally a season when church attendance dwindles because of school break and family vacations.  However, the movie series has gained such popularity that his LifeChurch.tv campus and others generally see attendance increase during that time."  Don't tell me this doesn't remind you of a carnival:

Visitors walk first into an area decorated like the movie's Flynn's Arcade, where they may play vintage video games such as the original “Tron” arcade game.

Then they enter the backlit game grid area through a simulated portal.

[...]

Then there is the “End of the Line Bar” area where visitors may order sweet tea, coffee or “Tron drinks” — tonic water mixed with Kool-Aid so that they glow in the dark like the drinks ordered at the bar in “Tron.”

Robison said a large tank that shoots out free T-shirts to visitors was created around a golf cart so that it can move. 

The campus pastor noted that this extravaganza is "something that's different from a lot of churches."

Hayward's critique of churches who constantly crave novelties and allow us to escape our boredom is spot on.  A common response to this critique is that a focus on high attendance and the new, shiny efforts that drive the numbers is not a bad thing, because more people hear the Gospel.  I'm sure that the pastors of this church, and many others, really bring it in their sermons, and I'm sure that many experience true change.  But the carnival-like, entertainment-driven focus, with numbers as our benchmark for success, is a capitulation to our consumer-driven culture.  

Consuming Jesus offers an incisive critique of the American church's love affair with consumerism.  Author Paul Louis Metzger points out that catering to what consumers want and creating wants in order to win them over to buying a product is completely acceptable to the church.  He says, "In a free-market church culture, those who cater most this consumer force thrive best."  (p. 40).  Metzger notes that, on the surface, this catering appears to be benign.  

I'm finishing up my review of David Fitch's The End of Evangelicalism, but can't help referring here to Fitch's idea that the American church sees absolutely no problem with free-market capitalism.  In fact, many have argued that it's the most moral of economic systems.  Metzger quotes Don Slater with the idea that consumerism is about accessibility to things that are "new, modish, faddish or fashionable, always improved and improving." (p. 44).  Many churches feel they better step it up, especially during the summer, and offer something different from other churches, in order to "win" people to the Gospel.  So using consumerism and its emphasis on the new and always improving is viewed as an effective tool.

This is the kicker: with consumerism, all social relations, activities and objects can be exchanged as a commodity.  The message of the Gospel runs counter to commodification and the catering to those in the pews, because certain things are not exchangeable.  However, entertainment-driven churches frame the Gospel as "an exchange between God and us rooted in satisfying our untrained need." (p. 45).  Uncritically assuming the driving forces of capitalism is problematic because it depersonalizes and dehumanizes us, and turns the Gospel into "not enough."  When churches have to add on a "something else" to their message, this should trigger concern.  

At the same time, consumerism means that, if church members feel that the Gospel being presented is too costly and not meeting their needs, the consumer/church member can simply pack up and move to the church next door.  I don't think a church that spends the majority of its focus on the 2,000 Bible verses about the poor would see high attendance numbers.  That pill is too hard to swallow for us American Christians.  Instead, please make us comfortable and deliver the goods to us.  And entertain us, for we are bored.

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.  

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

Is lust natural? More thoughts on bodies and consumerism

Last week, I added my thoughts to the ongoing conversation about what it means to be a "biblical" woman, especially in the context of American consumerist culture.  

photo © 2009 Neal Fowler | more info (via: Wylio)

For some reason, a post from 2007 by Dan from On Journeying with those in Exile popped up in my RSS feed.  I'm not sure why, but am very glad it did.  Dan offers an explanation of "lust," which relates to my issues with Challies' exhortations to Christian women.

Many evangelicals have resigned themselves to the belief that lust is a natural thing that men must overcome.  However, Dan points out that lust is culturally rooted, shaped by powers like patriarchy, consumerism, and capitalism.  

Dan sees the book Every Young Man's Battle as an example of this view.  I read the women's version, so I know that Dan is on target with his characterization.  He notes:

[T]he thing that probably upset me the most from my skim through this book was found in the Section entitled “How We Got Here” in the Chapter entitled “Just By Being Male.” Basically this chapter argues that the reason why so many Christian men struggle with sexual issues is because it is natural for men to struggle with those things — it is a part of their maleness. Now, this argument is pretty common in Christian circles (even beyond Evangelical circles) and it’s about time we did away with it.

You see, struggling with sexual issues is not just part of being male. “Lust” is not anontological issue, it is a cultural one — it is not related to our being, but to the way in which we are shaped and formed by our society. The truth is that there have been cultures where lust and sexually related crimes hardly existed at all. I think, for example, of the early encounters of Christian missionaries with some of the tribes in the South Pacific. Very little, if any, clothes were worn by the members of these tribes but people were not viewed as objects to be lusted after, and so things like sexual crimes were basically nonexistent. It was only after the missionaries began demanding that these people wear clothes — thereby imposing the idea that the female body is ever always an object of male lust — that sexual crimes came into being.

As Dan points out, lust is not as universal as we think.  I don't know if I can 100% agree that a culture would be completely void of sexual crimes.  However, I do think it's worth examining what our specific North American context has done to our beliefs about bodies, sex, and lust.  Whether subtly or explicitly, men are culturally conditioned to the core to view women as objects of desire, to such an extent that these views are tied up with what it means to be masculine.  I would add that this cultural conditioning is also tied up with what it means to be feminine in our culture, which ends up being a damaging, destructive force.  

Simply believing that lust is natural, as Dan points out:

reinforce[s] the structures that perpetuate the sexual objectification of women. Basically, Christian men are fighting the wrong battle. Instead of learning how to deal with something that is said to be a part of who they are as men, they need to learn how to resist the Powers that have led them to believe that something so unnatural is natural.

Another great point that Dan makes is that lust, and attempts to "control" it, are very male-centered: "it is the purity of the male mind that is at stake."  Dan rightly notes that what is truly at stake is the wholeness of the female person, and females tend to pay the highest price in this "battle."  I think that both male and female, and both mind and person, are at stake.

Thoughts?  Disagreement with Dan's ideas?

Women's bodies: Challies and theology in a vacuum

Blogger and author Rachel Held Evans recently critiqued the idea pervasive in American evangelicalism that a certain type of "biblical womanhood" is required of us, which means we cannot "let ourselves go," lest our husbands stray.  I wholeheartedly agree with Evans' critique and wish we had more women (and men too!) speaking up in this way.

Another blogger and author, Tim Challies, has responded to Evans.  I can affirm and appreciate portions of the response, but was left with a bothersome, nagging feeling...something was "off."  

As a longtime critic of leaders like Mark Driscoll, I can't help but speak up in this conversation.  So, in an effort to pinpoint what bothered me, I simply want to point out that we don't do theology and work out what Scripture says in a vacuum.  That is, if a middle-class white male wants to interpret parts of the Bible that appear to apply to women, we simply cannot ignore our American, consumerist context.

We don't hear about this issue often enough, probably because the loudest and most conspicuous voices in evangelicalism are male:  many, many women and young girls struggle with body image issues.  These issues are often fraught with complex, damaging relationships with food, exercise, other women, men, health...the list goes on.  

I can't even articulate how difficult it can be as an American woman to have what should be a normal, healthy view of her body.  We are constantly fed photo-shopped images of long bronzed legs, shiny smooth hair, poreless skin, and protruding collarbones.  The pressure for young girls is unbelievable.  Just google the word "thinspiration."  It will break your heart.

Women's bodies are used every day, all over the place, to sell things.  Women are constantly objectified, because of the meaning that our culture has assigned to our physical appearance.  A woman cannot simply be lauded for her intelligence or expertise on a subject - we just have to throw in a reference to her physical attributes.  

In an introduction to an academic lecture or a sermon (if she is even allowed to approach the pulpit), or in a newspaper article, physical descriptions are often included, such as "lovely" or a reference to clothing or jewelry.  I just read this description of a successful comedian and author in the NY Times: "[She] had on khaki pants and a blousy sleeveless top with small gold jewelry."  Do we feel the need to introduce or describe a man, before an academic lecture or in a NY Times profile, as handsome?  Do we mention whether his watch is gold or silver?  Very rarely, because to do so would seem ridiculous.

So as a Christian woman I constantly have to face these distorted images of what my body should look like, trying my best to call them out for what they are.  I have to be ever-conscious of the fact that women's bodies have been commodified and objectified in our culture, just to sell more things.  I have to be extra careful, in my workplace as an attorney-to-be, to prove myself based on my intellect and skill only.  And I can only hope my physical appearance is secondary rather than primary. 

It's tiring.  And I worry what it's doing to young girls who aren't able to name these sexist, consumerist, objectifying forces for what they are.  This is what our culture throws at us every day.  

What's even more worrisome and heartbreaking, however, is when the church is no different from our consumerist, damaging society.  Women and girls should be able to find redemption, healing, and new creation in the gospel, as worked out in our church communities.  Instead, we are told to choose "an attractive sweater instead of the stained Mickey Mouse t-shirt."  We are told to be "available" to our husbands.  I don't even want to unpack what the word "available" is supposed to mean.

Were I a mom, possibly struggling with post-partum depression, who has had a rough day attempting to wear the many hats we impose on women and mothers, and were I to read Challies' post, I would probably lose my shit, because some days we are lucky to throw on even a stained Mickey Mouse shirt.  Heaven help us.

Thankfully we do have voices like Evans' speaking up so that women--especially young girls--will realize that there is neither male nor female at the foot of the cross.  The radical message of Jesus deconstructs the devastating, objectifying, and not-good-enough images that are hurled at women these days.

Challies makes an excellent point that what is on the inside should inevitably reflect one's outward appearance, but even if he couches his emphasis on a woman's appearance in terms of "love" and "respect," his message comes across as no different from the one that bombards us in our consumerist society.  Yes, our outer appearance matters, but we absolutely cannot discuss the expectations of women's physical appearance without reckoning with the destructive, complex, and often-taboo issue of female body image and the effects of advertising.  To miss this important point would be an attempt at theology in a vacuum.

I do have hope that we can unpack this sensitive issue, especially as we move away from hearing exclusively male voices in evangelical-dom.  Any thoughts on Challies' response? 

Photo credit