Voices in the Static: Rising Out of Abuse

If you’ve been around this site for a while now, you now that I have recently started a series called “Voices in the Static.”  It’s a series that’s all about learning how to listen to voices that are often drowned out in our society.  It’s not about racing in with answers; and it’s not about debate.  It’s about figuring out how to quiet oneself long enough to let the story of another human being rise to the surface.

Recently, I had the opportunity to sit with a man who has been verbally, emotionally and spiritually abused.  And while his present circumstances are such that he is no longer subject to his abuser, he is not yet free to discuss the nature of what happened to him.  So today, there is no interview, no exchange of ideas, no dialog for you to sit in on.  But what I can share with you are these thoughts that I wrote to him in the aftermath of our time together.  And maybe, just maybe, through my faltering words, you will hear the faintest echo of his voice.  And in so hearing, maybe, just maybe, you will choose to stand up for justice on behalf of those that cannot.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“Dear Friend,

I keep trying to start this email, and my words just fail me … I’ve been up all night, and I haven’t stopped thinking about everything we’ve discussed.  Mostly, I keep thinking about you and your story.  I have no words to express my sorrow.  All I can say is that I have worked very closely with children who were in very dark places; and as I sat there, listening to you talk about your nightmares and about your self-confidence that was shattered …  you brought me to tears in the same way that those kids used to bring me to tears.  I don’t know if you saw it in my eyes as we sat there talking, but the tears were there.  And even as I write this to you, the tears are still there, only now they are flowing freely.

I know that you already know this, but we serve a God who grieves.  And to me, that matters.  It’s one of the reasons I worship Him.  It’s one of the things that I adore about Him.  He is not stoic, He is not dispassionate … He bleeds just as you and I bleed.  And He cries just as you I have cried.  And so, as I write this, I find myself thinking about your story and the stories of others who have suffered like you; and I find myself praying: “Lord, comfort them now, even as they continue to heal.  Remind them that they are made in your image, and that as such, they have immeasurable worth, regardless of what they have been told, regardless of how they have been manipulated.”

Just recently, you told me that no matter what comes of our discussions, something was gained because people had gathered to talk about things that really matter.  I’m here this morning to tell you that something else was gained.  You gained a friend.  While you already had my trust and my admiration, you gained my heart as well – my heart and my willful, freely-chosen decision to be your friend.  And so, if there is ever anything that I can do to serve you, I want you to know that I am here as your brother in Christ.”

 

“The Tree of Life” (2011): A One-Minute Film Review

How to explain a Terence Malick film to someone who has never seen one?  All at once, they are poetic, rapturous, maddening, illuminating, and even, perhaps, in a few choice moments, a bit pretentious. But one thing is for sure.  No matter what else you one might be tempted to say about a film by this man, you can never say that it is … expected. Enter Malick’s latest offering: The Tree of Life.  Lacking anything that could be conventionally described as a clear or linear storyline, the director, instead, seems utterly content to film a visual meditation on the themes of creation and evolution, fathers and sons, faith and doubt.  It is a story about a particular family rooted in a particular culture, but it’s larger than that, more ambitious in its reach.  Perhaps the best way to say it is to say that while this is the story of a family set in the 1950s, it is also the timeless story of humanity and its’ God.

In his book entitled Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism, psychologist Paul Vitz puts forth an argument in which he suggests that severe disappointment with one’s biological father often leads to an individual rejecting the concept of a heavenly Father.  Tracing both the histories of prominent atheists as well as prominent theists, Vitz turns Freud’s projection theory of religion on its head, as he makes a compelling case for a correlation between our willingness to conceive of a God that cares and our experiences with fathers that may or may not.

In many ways, The Tree of Life is an almost prayerful examination of Vitz’s central thesis, filled with wondrous moments of staggering beauty and wrenching snapshots of belittling pain.  And in the end, you can almost hear the words of the Apostle Paul echoing through the narrated voiceover:  “There are two ways in life: the way of nature and the way of grace.  You have to choose which one you’ll follow.”

I highly recommend The Tree of Life as one of the most audacious and profound films released in this new millennium.

This film has been rated PG-13 for thematic material and brief language.

 

Voices in the Static: When a Witch and Christian Sit Down to Talk

In just a few minutes, you are going to have the opportunity to sit in on a fascinating conversation that is the first of the “Voices in the Static” series.  These are meant to be conversations that highlight often-muffled “voices” that, although quiet, are steadily shaping our culture in ways that we may not yet be fully aware.   But before I bring you into that dialog, I want to begin by offering you a brief introduction to my partner in this conversation.  Over twenty years ago, Kendra Williams and I knew each other as friends who worked together in our high school theater.  Following graduation, we lost touch with one another, as so many high school friends are prone to do.  But in recent months, we have reconnected through Facebook; and tonight, she has agreed to engage with me in a conversation about her beliefs as a Pagan/Wiccan and how these beliefs shape her interactions with the broader culture and with Christians, in particular.  Kendra holds a degree in the theater arts from the University of Illinois (Chicago) and later went on to study the Japanese language at the University of Maryland.  She presently works as an Office Manager in downtown Chicago and moonlights as an artist in the medium of henna.

 

The Descent: James MacDonald, Harvest Bible Chapel and the Blurry Road to a Prosperity Gospel

There is a heated controversy brewing in the evangelical world – one that has the power to fundamentally alter the shape of one of the most influential churches in the Chicagoland area.  The roots of the controversy stretch back to 2011 and the birth of an idea called The Elephant Room.  Put simply, the premise behind this event was to gather various leaders both from within the church and from outside of it to discuss “the most Christ honoring ways of building a church.”[1]  The event was recorded, simulcast and eventually sold in the interest of reaching and influencing the widest possible array of Christian leaders around the globe.

 

Voices in the Static

It has been said that “the most basic of all human needs is the need to understand and be understood” and that “the best way to understand people is to listen to them.”[1]  If that is true, I wonder if we, as a society, are not in real danger at this very moment.  For it seems to me that as a collective whole, we seem to be rapidly loosing our ability to hear the voices of the people around us, even as we continue to turn up the sound of the static that underscores our daily lives.

Today, I want to introduce to you a new series that is dedicated to turning down the white noise of culture so that we might be better equipped to hear the sounds of the ordinary people all around us.  This series is all about their stories.  It’s about what drives them to live in the way that they do.  It’s about their fears and their hopes.  It’s about the thousands of little choices that they make in circumstances that are sometimes dramatic and life changing.  These are not the stories of the people who shape history.  But they are the stories of our friends and families – the stories of people who are all made in “the image of God.”

So I want to invite you to sit down in your favorite armchair with a cup of coffee in hand; and I want to invite you to listen in as I sit with these people and ask them about the ways in which they see the world. You may not always agree with everything that these individuals have to say.  But if you silence yourself and commit yourself to listen to their voices, you may just learn a thing or two about the world all around you.

May these stories illuminate you, even as they have illuminated me.

---

[1] Ralph Nichols.

 

Breaking Rank: Coming Out as “Gay By Choice”

Cynthia Nixon and her finance, Christine Marinoni

Imagine a hypothetical scenerio in which a well-known pastor from a culturally influential church suddenly came out and admitted that he did not believe the Bible to be inerrant or even inspired.  What would the reaction of the orthodox Christian community look like?  How quickly would we close ranks, talking about the importance of community and foundational beliefs?

If you can imagine this moment and if you can grasp the cultural stakes that are up for grabs, than perhaps you can begin to understand the magnitude of Cynthia Nixon’s recent decision to announce that she is “gay by choice.” Within the broader LGBTQ sub-culture, [1] this is a defection from “orthodoxy” that provides all manner of fodder for those that wish to repress the influence of homosexuality on the wider culture at large.  And as a former star of the widely acclaimed, post-feminist Sex and the City, Ms. Nixon could not be a more public figure.

My purpose here today is not to enter the fray through offering any ill-formed opinions of my own.  Rather, my purpose here today is to allow Ms. Nixon to speak for herself, thus raising questions that are worthy of open discussion.

“I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.  As you can tell, I am very annoyed about this issue. Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.”[2]

As I said, it’s an enormous declaration.  And there are so many things to unpack in a statement like this that I almost hesitate to open the can of worms.  Nevertheless, this is an important issue for both those within the church and those outside of it.  And when a well-known member of a marginalized community makes a announcement of this magnitude, we absolutely should sit up and pay attention because it has the potential to reveal a great deal about who we are as a society and what we believe to be true.

So what do you think of Cynthia Nixon’s decision?  Was it the brave act of a woman committed to walking her own path, in spite of what the majority of her sub-culture believes to be true?  Or was it the selfish and/or naive act of a woman who willfully threw an oil drum of jet fuel on the bonfire of a culture war?  It’s an interesting question to be sure, particularly in a postmodern culture that idolizes the value of community, but still worships at the alter of Modern, radical, individualized autonomy.

---

[1] LGBTQ is the acronym for the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender and queer community.

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/cynthia-nixon-wit.html?_r=3&pagewanted=3

 

“Good Christian Bitches” and the Ugly Reflection We May Not Wish to See

In just a few short weeks, ABC will launch a new mid-season series under the moniker GCB.[1]  Originally titled Good Christians Bitches, the series tells the story of Amanda Vaughn, a now-single, mother-of-two, who is forced to return home to Dallas, Texas after her marriage ends in a spectacularly public scandal.  As a former high school bully, Vaughn hopes to rebuild her life through the assistance of her mother and the help of the local church.  But as the title of the series not so subtly suggests, she is quickly given an education in the “true nature” of Christian women.  In the words of Leslie Bibb, the lead actress:

“This show shines a light on people who say, “I go to church every Sunday, I’m a God-fearing person.  [This show] is like, ‘Hey, y’all, let’s just look at what’s really going on.’”

Not surprisingly, last March, when the series was still in its formative stages, the Parents Television Council came out swinging.   According to Tim Winter, the President of the PTC:

“The ‘B-word’ is toxic and is used to degrade, abuse, harass, bully and humiliate women.  The ‘Christian’ element only adds insult to injury. Regardless of whether the title ultimately makes it to broadcast, ABC has publicly proclaimed its values and it has tarnished the Disney brand … Would ABC even consider another faith to denigrate?  Would they even consider a program title or a plot line based on ‘Bitches’ who were Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist? I suspect not, and I certainly hope not.  So why the double standard?”[2]

Now on the one hand, Winter makes an excellent point.  For in American society, you do not see the widespread, open denigration of other faith groups in the same way that you see the media declare open season on Christianity.  In fact, having a character profess belief in Jesus the Christ has almost become a lazy, shorthand way of setting that character up as the antagonist of a screenplay.  But I’m not interested in talking about the unfair nature of negative stereotyping in the media.  Instead, I am interested in talking about our reactions to such messaging.  Consider, if you will, the words of the Christ as captured by the Apostle John in his Gospel:

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.  Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.”[3]

Culture tells stories.  Indeed, culture itself is a story.  So should we be surprised that a secular company that is charged with the task of telling stories that make money denigrates Christianity?  Absolutely not.  Jesus told us to expect this sort of behavior.  But here’s the thing.  He didn’t simply say, “This is coming.”  He also entrusted His apostles to tell us a little about how we should respond.  And it is on this point that I want to turn your attention to the first letter penned by the Apostle Peter.

“Dear friends, do not be astonished that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as though something strange were happening to you.  But rejoice in the degree that you have shared in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice and be glad.If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory,who is the Spirit of God, rests on you.  But let none of you suffer as a murderer or thief or criminal or as a troublemaker.  But if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but glorify God that you bear such a name. For it is time for judgment to begin, starting with the house of God.[4]

Now I want you to look very closely at the latter portion of that passage.  It starts by reminding us that not all suffering is the result of unjust persecution.  Some suffering is nothing more than the product of our own actions – our own hypocrisy.  Some suffering is brought on by the fact that we claim the name of Christ, but act as if He has not given us a “spirit of power” that enables us to live lives that bring honor to His name.[5]

So today, on the eve of the launch of Good Christian Bitches, I want to ask a question.  Is society mocking us because of the exemplary way in which we bear witness to the love and sacrifice of Jesus the Christ?  Or are we being mocked because of the hypocrisy the world sees in a church that wants to claim the name of Jesus while still holding on to some of the very behaviors that we are called to release?

While I can’t say that I will likely be a regular connoisseur of this program, part of me is grateful that it’s going to air.  Part of me is grateful that society is holding a mirror up to the church, and is asking pointed, satirical – dare I say, prophetic – questions.  For through questions comes self-examination, and through self-examination comes refinement and renewed commitment to Kingdom values.

So here’s to hoping that so long as Good Christian Bitches airs, we have the courage look at this portrait of our community.  And here’s to hoping that through this ugly mirror, we, as Christians, might become more invested in telling better stories through our lives that are marked by humility, forgiveness, courage and a renewed commitment to justice.

---

[1] The title of the original source material was “Good Christian Bitches.”   After the Parents Television Council submitted a petition with over 120,000 signatures to ABC, the title was changed to “Good Christians Belles” before eventually being changed again to “GCB.”  New Zealand is the only market in which the show will be aired under its original title.

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365037/Good-Christian-Bitches-ABCs-new-accused-tarnishing-Disney-brand.html#ixzz1kO6VmCBn

[3] John 15:18-20a.

[4] 1 Peter 4:12-17

[5] 1 Timothy 1:7.

 

“Sexless” Babies and the Rise of “Gender Creativity”

In 2007, Beck Laxton, a self-professed “radical feminist” gave birth to a baby named Sasha.  And for five years, Laxton and her partner worked to keep the sex of their baby a secret, in the hopes of making a statement against gender stereotypes.

“All I want to do is make people think a bit.  I just want Sasha to fulfill his potential, and I wouldn’t push him in any direction … As long as he has good relationships and good friends, then nothing else matters, does it? What’s more important than being happy, and making other people happy? It’s all that matters.”[1]

Since that time, Canadians Kathy Witterick and husband David Stocker have made a similar decision regarding their child, Storm.  When Storm was born in May of 2011, they sent out an email to their close friends and family in which they said:

“We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime (a more progressive place?).”[2]

Although decisions like these are still clearly outside of the cultural norm, they are not entirely unheard of.  Take, for instance, Shiloh Pitt-Jolie, the four-year old daughter of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.  In recent months, Shiloh has drawn attention to herself by her unique sense of fashion.  And in an August interview with Vanity Fair, Shiloh’s mother, Angelina, had this to say:

“She wants to be a boy.  So we had to cut her hair. She likes to wear boys’ everything. She thinks she’s one of the brothers.  She dresses like a little dude. It’s how people dress there (in Montenegro). She likes tracksuits, she likes [regular] suits.”

Clearly, “gender creativity” is on the rise in society.  And while it is far from the norm for parents to make decisions as radical as these, there is no denying the fact that greater and greater freedom of choice is being given to individuals in the construction of their sexual identity.  But on a cultural level, this is quite confusing and even somewhat contradictory.

On the one hand, many who self-identify as being part of the “far left” want to deny the differences that gender should be allowed to play in the socialization of an individual.  They want to suggest that society should treat all people, regardless of gender, as equals, both in societal status and in access to power.  In the most extreme cases, you have parents who choose to maximize “gender creativity,” in the hopes of creating a world where sexual identity does not play a role in an individual’s ability to either succeed or be accepted.

But on the other hand, another segment of the cultural left wants to argue that the LGBTQ[3] community is entirely defined by its sexual identity, marking it out as a marginalized population.  For members of this community, matters of sexual preference are often seen as being deeply rooted in biology, and thus they serve as a defining characteristic of the individual, and one that shouldn’t, under any circumstance, be minimized or ignored.

This creates a rather interesting cultural dilemma.  If we want to suggest that socialization should not be determined by the biological sex of an individual, than how can we, at the same time, argue that biological predispositions towards certain sexual preferences form the core of an individual’s identity?  It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways.  Either sexuality should play a significant role in how people perceive us and interact with us or it should not.

If you tend to think that our biological sex should define how society perceives and interacts with us, how do you think we, as a culture, should go about deciding what are and are not appropriate gender roles?  What’s off limits to boys?  What’s off limits to girls?  And who decides?

If, on the other hand, you think that biological construction should not define us, then how can we, as a society, give any credence to notion that the LGBTQ community is a marginalized group of people? 

Whether we like it or not, these are the questions that we are facing as a society; and how we answer them, as Christians, will go a long way towards our ability to interact with those that see human sexuality in a different way than many within conservative evangelical circles tend to see it.

---

[1] http://www.christianpost.com/news/parents-finally-reveal-gender-of-child-after-5-years-of-secrecy-67672/

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389593/Kathy-Witterick-David-Stocker-raising-genderless-baby.html

[3] LGBTQ is the shorthand acronym for the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, and queer community.

 

“Humilitas”: A Saturday Afternoon Book Review

Today, I would like to introduce the “Saturday Afternoon Book Review,” a new series highlighting little-known books that offer valuable and often challenging insights into subjects that are sorely in need of genuine theological reflection.  I begin with John Dickson’s 2011 release, entitled Humilitas: A Lost Key to Life, Love and Leadership.

As I recently made my way through this slim, yet highly engaging, volume on the subject of humility, I was struck by one overwhelmingly convicting thought.  This virtue, which in many ways encapsulates the “fruits of the spirit”[1] described by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians, has largely disappeared in today’s society.  As the secular culture continues to promote thinking and behaviors that veer dangerously close to narcissism, the modern church has likewise adopted a similar culture whereby successful leaders and pastors are often given a pass on this characteristic so long as they can skillfully construct a wide-ranging ministry that is financially robust and openly admired.

But the interesting thing about Dickson’s book is that it does not pit humility against success or growth.  Instead, it tries to make the argument that humility is often one of the most important characteristics of those people that have historically achieved the loftiest of goals.  In other words, while people seem to be able to construct “empires” that “succeed” over a short period of time, very few construct anything lasting or memorable unless they are grounded first by the belief that it is not the individual that matters.

What a clarion call in an Enlightened society and church that seems ever more interested in elevating the glory of the individual over the needs of the community.

---

[1] The fruits of the Spirit are defined in Galatians 5:22-23 as follows: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

 

Obesity in America: What’s in a Chocolate Bar?

It has been said that you are what you eat; and if that is true, well … we’ll get to that in a moment.  In the meantime, there is no denying the fact that when it comes to eating healthy, many Americans are simply out to lunch.  At this point in our collective history, more than one out of every three adults is technically obese[1] while 15% of children between the ages of 6 and 11 are well on their way. Moreover, it’s not as if 30% of Americans have always been this overweight.  This is trend that has has arisen largely over the past 20 years.  Check out this brief video and you’ll see what I mean.