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!

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…

Green suburbs?

An article today in the New York Times points out how much of a challenge it can be to live green in the suburbs, since many environmentally damaging things are so ingrained in our lifestyle. We can do a lot to reduce our negative impact, but suburbanites may have to make more drastic changes:

But the problem with suburbs, many environmentalists say, is not an issue of light bulbs. In the end, the very things that make suburban life attractive — the lush lawns, spacious houses and three-car garages — also disproportionally contribute to global warming. Suburban life, these environmentalists argue, is simply not sustainable.

“The very essence of the post-Second World War America suburb militates against ‘greening,’ ” said Thomas J. Sugrue, a professor of history and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. “Given the almost complete dependency of suburbanites on the car, it’s an uphill battle.”

And a lot of even the little things can be a challenge to implement:

Alexander Lee, the 33-year-old founder of Project Laundry List, which tries to revive the use of clotheslines to save energy, has run into plenty of resistance from suburban community associations, many of which have regulations restricting them, he said.

“There are three complaints,” Mr. Lee said. “It will lower my property values. That’s what poor people do. Also, I don’t want anyone to see my underwear — what I call the ‘prudery’ objection.”

I think it will take a large-scale effort from everyone, but if we can build an interstate highway system, why can’t we build a public transportation system? Maybe it boils down to our unwillingness to give up the independence of our own cars?

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.

From "The Margins..."

I came across a concrete way of living out the sharing that I had wondered about in a previous post.  In Backyards and washing machines, Erika and her family, who are living in South Central, L.A., realize that not "every person or household needs to have every thing." Her other thoughts from "The Margins" are also worth reading!

The suburban family

I tend to notice alternative ways of thinking about families, mainly because one political/religious group in our country has a monolopy on "family." They think they get to define and defend it. What bothers me most is some say their focus on the family is Christian-based, when really their notion of family comes from our culture or even capitalism. Since I'm currently reading The Suburban Christian by Al Hsu, a few sections regarding family jumped out at me.

The very layout of suburbia is driven by American individualism. Each family is to have its own home, yard, transportation etc. Hsu notes, "Inherent to American suburbia is an emphasis on the pursuit of individual homeownership rather than a communal or corporate vision of civic community" (39). He also includes a quote by Dolores Hayden, "Unlike every other affluent civilization, Americans have idealized the house and yard rather than the model neighborhood or the ideal town" (39). Capitalism perpetuates the single-family housing boom, as well. It is in the best interests of mortgage companies, Home Depots, developers, and other retailers to further the idea of one home for each family. No sharing here--that would hurt profits!

This idea of a single-family home is ingrained in our culture. It's expected of us; of course we can't live with our college buddies forever. Or heaven forbid with mom and dad! Owning your very own home is the ideal, the last thing along the continuum of living spaces, so in our culture it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing too, given that I hate throwing money away on rent. I've been wondering, though, about alternatives. Shane Claiborne has mentioned a neighborhood that got together and decided to share their stuff. They didn't have multiple lawn mowers and tools, etc. And Hsu brings up "sixplexes," a proposal by Christian futurist Tom Sine, where six families would live under one roof. They would share a larger kitchen, dining room, and living room.

In addition, Hsu mentions that the suburbs are not what we think: homogeneously white. Suburbs are in fact quite diverse, but since they are set up differently than cities, we tend to think they are full of middle-class whites. Suburbs were originally set up for mostly white people, after World War II, but now these communities are seeing a number of ethnic backgrounds. The set-up was also individualistic, single-family homes, but people from non-white ethnicities have transformed the uses of such homes. Multi-generational families live there, not just mom and dad with two kids.

Hsu points out that these families that may look different to us "demonstrate family values and identity not often seen in typical (white) American families, where relatives beyond the nuclear family rarely live under one roof" (43). He says that such families are similar to the descriptions of families in Scripture.

So it seems truly having family values involves more than making sure movies don't have sex scenes or curse words. It means more than focusing on "sanctity of marriage" or "sanctity of life." Espousing family values that correspond with the Gospel may mean practicing things that hit closer to home. Sure, it would be easy for me to parrot the talking points of James Dobson, but thinking about my living space in terms of economic justice and community is a different story!

Conspiracy!

More suburb stuff. I have recently learned some interesting things about one of the ways suburbs came about. It was really strange, actually, because I learned about a PBS program, "Taken for a Ride," during a session of this week's urban ministry conference. Then I read about the exact same thing in a book I'm reading, Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. It's an interesting story, and it made me realize what's tied to our roads and restaurants.

Starting in the 1920's, General Motors started buying up trolley companies in US cities, including Tulsa. Other companies related to the automobile, like oil companies and Firestone, joined in the takeover. What better way to improve car sales than to put cheap public transportation out of business? That's exactly what these companies did, and once GM and others completed the buyout, they could soon replace trolleys with GM-manufactured bus lines, which were later phased out so that cars would become the norm. What's scary is the advertising campaign that the companies launched in order to discourage trolley use. Makes me wonder what ad campaigns are going on right now that we don't even realize.

The automobile manufacturers had it good, considering the federal government financed and built our interstate highway system for the manufacturers. Looking at the history of relationships between the government and companies like GM, it seems that there were many conflicts of interest. Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense, Charles Wilson, was the former president of GM. Wilson's motto: What's good for our country is good for General Motors and vice versa.

But highways are nice, right? I mean, our nation's leaders during the '50's were thinking of the common good of our country; one of the driving forces behind building interstates was that, if communists (think 1950's) were to attack the US, we would need an infrastructure that could transport people and goods quickly and efficiently. I certainly benefit from the interstate system. The trip by car from my school to my hometown that would take days instead takes 13 hours, thanks to the efficient highway system.

There are definitely harmful things that came from interstates, though. At about the same time as the inception of the highway system, the GI Bill and subsidized low-cost housing came into effect. Property values and loan-eligibility, however, were tied to race, and many nonwhites were kept from owning homes. So, homogeneous communities sprang up along the interstates, leaving the cities boarded up and urban communities without leaders.

What Schlosser dubs "car culture" started to develop. Motels and drive-in fast-food restaurants dotted the interstates, and people felt more independent and less restricted. People thought they were spending less money. According to Schlosser, "driving seemed to cost less than using public transport--an illusion created by the fact that the price of a new car did not include the price of building new roads." The success of fast-food companies depends on the automobile; the two are inextricably linked. Schlosser notes that during 1973's Arab oil embargo, "America's car culture was endangered," which "gave the fast food industry a bad scare."

I first heard about this part of our history in a session about shalom, where we learned that shalom is not just "peace" (or our limited definition of peace), but it is wholeness, the way things are supposed to be. I've never realized how biblical is the issue of economic development and I've never noticed what's behind the golden arches and our freeways. Convenience, efficiency, and "independence" come at a high price. We know that our car culture has produced environmental and health destruction, yet what about community destruction? What about wholeness and the way things are supposed to be? I know a lot more in the church are taking notice now, but I hope that we can continue to remember the effects of things like development and gentrification, and stand on behalf of the "least of these."