I started the week at a women’s book discussion at my church where we are reading through Sue Monk Kidd’s Dance of the Dissident Daughter. I love that story of one woman’s awakening, and it served as a significant part of my journey in affirming my worth as a woman. Our discussion this week focused on how language is still often used to demean women. When the worst insults in our culture are to call someone a girl, when women are still pressured to have sons, and apologize for birthing daughters, when in business meetings women are ignored, or forced to be and dress like men in order to compete – sexism is alive and well. The constant blows at who we are surround us, and we all lamented that when we point out this stuff we are dismissed as angry bitches. That whole discussion was reflective and theoretical, but then I went out this week and saw it all in play.

A couple weeks ago I signed a letter to the Presidential Selection Committee for my alma mater Wheaton College encouraging them to consider female and minority candidates for the next President of Wheaton. Dr. Duane Litfin is retiring after 17 years of leading the college with an ultra-conservative hand. He was selected to steer the college away from a perceived “liberal” turn in the 1980s. So he brought his dispensational, cessationist, anti-ecumenical and anti-egalitarian views to the college. My former pastor, a friend of his, told me as I headed off to college that Litfin’s greatest fear for the college was the growing amount of women entering the biblical studies field. And while I was there, great efforts were taken to promote “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” and silence the students for biblical equality groups. But now as he is leaving, there is a chance for the college to break those chains and take a stand for women. Yet even proposing that option has met with disdain. Responses to the mere suggestion of considering a woman or minority include - “You have got to be kidding me. Only in academia and government are such bogus voices funded and stroked. I feel specifically called to buy something with a pink ribbon emblem and then go wretch.” and “This is silliness. And it’s a classic example of what happens when people ignore the Pendulum of Truth” and “I do not think, however, that they should be set on finding a female or minority president. It is very likely that in doing that, they may end up with someone that will lead the school in a very dangerous direction.” Along with numerous assertions that the college should hire the most-qualified candidate, implying that a woman or a minority would not fit that bill. Sexism is alive and well.

Then here in Austin a couple of weeks ago, the DJ’s of my favorite morning radio show were suspended for using offensive language. The British radio host had used a phrase that sounded like a racial slur, and they laughed about the awkwardness of what her phrase sounded like. They were suspended without pay for a couple of weeks and forced to take cultural sensitivity classes. Since returning they have been very careful not to really say anything about other races, even stopping themselves in the middle of stories. But the use of women as insults has continued in full force. They constantly compare people to girls to show how weak and pathetic they are. They use references to women’s anatomy to insult people – especially the ever-popular term “douchebag.” Lesson learned – we have to be sensitive to other races but women are scum to be used however we like.

Similar lesson from this whole recent controvery about the Deadly Viper book. In the promo for the book about men’s intigrity published by Zondervan, the authors made use of Asian cultural references in really inappropriate and insensitive ways. It was obviously offensive, and a number of us in the Christian community pointed out that offense and asked for an apology. I fully affirm that an apology was needed to my Asian brothers and sisters, and the Christian community in general. At the same time, I was disturbed that many of the people calling for an apology were saying stuff like “I think the content of the book is great, I just have problems with the culturally insensitive packaging.” I think they were saying that to be nice and build bridges, but in all truth the curriculum is full of sexist stereotypes that use women as insults. The authors even have a video on their website promoting their Mancave series that is simply a series of gender stereotypes where manly=good and girly=bad. I applaud the efforts to stand up to insensitive racial stereotypes in the church, but wish people hadn’t affirmed gender stereotypes in the process. And I really wonder if that same group of people would put forth the effort to take a stand for treating women in the church with respect just like they asked for Asians in the church to be treated with respect. I want to believe they would, but far too often I see sexism protected by the shield of “theology” in ways that racism can never be in our modern world.

Sexism is alive and well. This week has just been a reminder of how far we have to go until women are respected as fully human and not demeaned for the sake of entertainment.

Jonathan asked –

to what aspect is Justice culturally relevant? or Universal? would an injustice in the US ever be seen as justice, or acceptable, in a different context?

This is a sticky question. It brings up the whole idea of cultural relativity. I agree that all cultures are different, but also believe that justice can transcend culture. That doesn’t mean that there are absolute ways justice can always be applied, just that the idea of seeking to love the other in all things isn’t limited by culture. But as Derrida rightly pointed out, whenever we start to codify justice we create injustice. Creating the absolute laws help us understand and promote justice, but they too can fail. There will always be exceptions to any blanket statement on justice – and there will be levels of injustices as well. That said, I don’t think this should prevent us from taking stands for what we think is right or to seek to love people, but to realize that our actions sometimes will have to be creative and will always be messy.

Take child labor for instance. It is illegal in the United States and in many other countries. We fought hard in this country to get laws in place to protect children. And technically it is against the law to import any goods into the U.S. that have been made using child labor. I think most of us would agree that children shouldn’t have to do work that is physically dangerous or that causes them developmental harm. In addition, most Americans would assert that children deserve to be children – to have time to play, be imaginative, and be educated. There may be some debate if the latter are rights per se, but most of us would agree that forcing a child to do work that stunts their growth is unjust.

This past week as the story emerged that in this tough economy children have started working alongside their migrant worker parents picking blueberries and tomatoes across the U.S. Around the world it is not uncommon for children to work alongside their parents in the fields. Heck, our school year is structured the way it is so that kids would be off to help their parents with the harvest. But to see pictures of 5 year old girls carrying large buckets of berries is hard. Not only is what she doing against the codified law of our country, she is not getting an education and is being exposed to dangerous pesticides. But she is working so her family can survive. Most children working in factories and fields around the world do so so that their family can put food on the table. Taking a stand for what is right in those situations is messy. One can’t call the situation unjust, force her to return to school, and prosecute the field owners without causing more injustices along the way.

Imposing one idea of justice shouldn’t cause more injustices, but sometimes in the short run, that is unfortunately what happens. Cultural habits or just what one has to do to survive in a culture clash with other culture’s ideas of justice. I personally don’t think we should ever excuse any injustice as inevitable or “just the way things are.” But sometimes seeking justice in diverse cultural setting will require us to look at the bigger picture and not just the moment. I believing rescuing individual children from dangerous situations is the right thing to do across cultures, but it must be done alongside of actions that address why that child was in that situation to begin with. Imposing laws without understand doesn’t help. Working for large scale healing can.

So we have to ask – if these families were being paid fair wages for their work, then perhaps they wouldn’t have to choose to send their children to the fields. If the U.S. didn’t impose harsh stipulations for foreign debt repayment perhaps children in other countries could leave the fields and go to school as well. Or if a religion wasn’t teaching that women are inferior if the girls would get an education and not be cast aside to literally die in sweatshops or brothels. We must work within the systems, understanding them, asking the hard questions to see justice work across the board.

Jamie asked -

I get so overwhelmed with the interconnectedness of justice and consumerism. I feel sometimes like I have no choices. How do we even live as humans in America without going completely off the grid?

I think there are a lot of people out there who would say the only answer is to go off the grid. We already have all sorts of intentional communities and communes that do their best to go off the grid to some extent. And I respect and even admire that. But for as often as I am labeled an idealist, I am a very practical person. In my opinion, it just isn’t feasible for everyone to step off the grid. Or even for, say, all justice minded Christians to do so.

Part of the problem with that is sustainability. There are just too many people to totally abandon the infrastructures that are currently in place. We still have to eat and have clothing and shelter – we need those structures to survive. Sure it is possible for groups of 50-100 to remove themselves from the system or for powerful countries to force smaller non-industrial countries to live in primitive conditions. But New York City can’t just step off the grid.

Why? Because the way many people remove themselves from the grid these days is by surviving on the excess waste and remnants of that grid. For example, the freegans who live off of dumpster diving survive only because the rest of us throw away perfectly good food. Veggie-mobiles often run on the used fry oil from fast food restaurants. The earthship recycled homes are built from the discarded tires and glass bottles of others. I think what they all do are fantastic ways to reduce consumption and waste in this world, but they are not sustainable solutions. If we were not creating this waste to begin with, then people couldn’t live this way. If everyone stepped off the grid in the paradigms we have available at the moment, we couldn’t survive.

But I am also not comfortable with the idea that living justly is therefore only for certain people. Sure, some people can step off the grid in those ways, but it isn’t feasible (for a variety of reasons) for everyone to do so. They can be off the grid redeeming the waste the rest of us produce. Others of us through need to be working within the system to make it more just. We have to act to reduce our own waste, and to call the system to take a hard look at itself. I might despise the grid, but sometimes it takes working from within to affect change in the long run.

Justice has to be everyday and doable for it to make an impact. Subvert the system and improving the system are just two sides of the same coin. Both take a lot of work, and we may never see the outcomes, but we can each do our part wherever we are at.

It was exciting to read all the comments about the ways people seek justice. And there were some really good questions raised as well. I’ll be interacting with some of those during the upcoming week, so stay tuned for the continuing conversation.

This video highlights some of why the network formed.

TransFORM: Missional Community Formation from TransFORM on Vimeo.

If you are interested in finding out more, join the TransFORM network or plan to attend the upcoming gathering. They are gathering missional practitioners on the East Coast to learn from each other and to mobilize others for forming new missional communities. Whether you’re a pastor, prospective “church planter,” or simply interested in finding out more about transformational missional communities of practice, this gathering is designed to inspire and equip you to go and do likewise! Speakers include Brian McLaren, Kathy Escobar, Pete Rollins, and Anthony Smith.

Time: April 30, 2010 at 8am to May 2, 2010 at 1pm
Location: Wesley Theological Seminary
City/Town: Washington, D.C.

If you are unfamiliar with the book, Everyday Justice explores how our daily actions (like what we eat or wear) connect us to people around the world. These daily actions can often though support systems of injustice that cheat and oppress people. Everyday Justice gives biblical support for why seeking justice for the oppressed is a faith issue and gives practical everyday suggestions for how we can choose to subvert systems of oppression and demonstrate love to others instead.

So if you are interested in discovering more about faith and justice, or are looking for practical everyday ways you can work for justice, Everyday Justice can be a valuable resource. And I’m giving away a copy here for my blog readers. All I ask is that you leave a comment below where you tell me either one practical thing you do to seek justice or post a question you have about justice. (I’ll interact with them in later posts). Or if you really can’t think of anything to say because you have no idea what justice is all about (and so really need to read the book) – just leave your name and say “I want the book.” You have until Sunday Nov. 1 at midnight (Central) to leave a comment and the winner (based on some super scientific selection process involving my 4 year old) will be announced Monday morning.

Good luck and I look forward to reading your comments!

(and if you are interested in increasing your chances of winning, the same offer is up at everydayjustice.net)

***Update – Congrats to Elisha Murrell the winner!

And yes, that must be mentally read to the Fiddler on the Roof tune.

Recent discussions here brought up the need to respect and submit to the authority of tradition in the church. Those of us in emerging discussion based churches were accused of just being individualists with no higher authority but ourselves. We were asked what church authority we submit to in the faith with the assumption that everyone should be submitting to someone. Such things like liturgy were championed because they are rooted in tradition and hence are often put forth as therefore the appropriate way to do church. This is a discussion popular in the church these days – even in emerging circles. We have Phyllis Tickle saying that the future of the church is in the hyphenateds – traditional denominations that are engaging the emerging conversation. Jim Belcher’s recent book, Deep Church, suggests an alternative to emerging Christianity is to have the church rooted in tradition, specifically the conservative reformed Presbyterian tradition. And Brian McLaren even recently affirmed what Richard Rohr said about the need for Emergents to be rooted in tradition -

It seems to me that the emerging church is emerging because people are finding the ability to have a grateful foot in both camps—one in the Tradition (the mother church) along with another foot inside of a support group that parallels, deepens, broadens, grounds, and personalizes the traditional message. But you don’t throw out the traditional message, or you have to keep rebuilding the infrastructure or creating a superstructure all over again.

I get all that. I see the beauty of tradition. I see the futility in think we are building something from scratch. I don’t think tradition should be scoffed at or rejected. I’m not anti-tradition.

It’s just that none of those are my traditions. I have never been rooted in liturgical practice. I didn’t grow up in denominations with catechisms and standard hymnals and theological tomes that cannot be questioned. I feel no allegiance to Luther, or Calvin, or Barth. I know I am influenced by them and owe my faith to the path they laid, but I’ve never been part of that tribe. I guess I could choose to adopt their tradition as my own just like I could decide that I wanted to become thoroughly culturally Chinese, but at the moment I feel no inclination to become Lutheran (or Chinese).

I know I am part of a great tradition. My faith does not exist in a vacuum – I respect and am grateful for the heritige of my faith. But I get uneasy with the repeated insistence that I must have at least one foot planted firmly in some tradition in order to have a holistic and healthy faith. I am told that I am rejecting tradition in pursuit of an individualistic faith if I do not. But honestly how can I reject something I never had? Those aren’t my tribes. I am just a low-church mutt who has found her place in the emerging conversation.

So given that – the question becomes “is tradition necessary for faith?” Or, can I be a Christian outside of a historic tradition or must I choose to align myself with an established tradition in order to be truly faithful? I know that’s the Catholic and Orthodox stance – but is it the official stance of the Lutherans, or Presbyterians, or Anglicans, or the emerging hyphenateds thereof? Must I choose one of those tribes? Or is there actually room for building new infrastructure and making a tribe out of us fringe immigrants who have no home?

This discussion is often framed as a dichotomy between tradition and rejection thereof – but not all of us fit neatly into those two categories. There needs to be room for us too – even if that requires changing the nature of this whole discussion.

This is a film about a girl being empowered to find herself. But it does so while admitting that life is messy. You have the standard plotline of restricted kid being held back by irrational parents, but it is also more than that. Bliss’ mother isn’t just a controlling mom shoving 1950’s stereotypes of pageant queens down her daughter’s thoughts. She loves her kids and wants them to have more opportunities than she ever had. Bliss’ doesn’t pursue roller derby to rebel, she does it because she has discovered a part of herself she never knew existed. Sure, there is conflict with her family, but the take-home message is that the individual always has to exist in community as a vital part of a family. Bliss realizes that she needs her family and her friends even as she comes into her own.

What she realizes she doesn’t need is the boy. Like any in girl grows up movie, Bliss meets the guy, falls in love, and gets hurt. And doesn’t get back together. She realizes that she doesn’t want to be “that girl” who allows herself to be hurt by guys and who has to change who she is for them. She regrets giving everything to her boyfriend, but comes through the pain more aware of who she is and knowing that she doesn’t need a boyfriend in order to be a whole person. This isn’t a “men – who needs them” message, but it’s a strong reminder that a woman’s worth and identity is not defined by the man she’s attached to.

I also loved that her experience in roller-derby wasn’t based on success but on being empowered by the experience. Unlike the typical guy sports film where the team ends up winning the state championship (and hence proving that hard work pays off blah, blah, blah…), when Bliss’s team comes in second place they don’t despair or choose to learn from their defeat or work harder next time – they break into a joyous team chant of “We’re number 2! We’re number2!” happy in their accomplishment of playing the game. They were a team and they proved to themselves as women that they could do this thing. That, not winning, was what mattered. I loved it.

Whip It was all about this healthy empowerment. It was the story of a girl discovering her own strength in community. She can be fierce and powerful and good, really good, at what she does. She doesn’t need to define herself by the warped standards of this world. She can be herself. This is the sort of story that we need to hear more often. Instead of the standard plotlines of “princess in need of rescue” or “someday my prince will come” found in most girl coming of age movies, Whip It provides a realistic role model I wouldn’t mind my daughter looking up to. Instead of telling women that we are defined by our bodies, our relationship with a man, our ability to compete and win, or our ability to be nice and compliant – we can hear that it’s okay to be ourselves in all of our glory and messiness.

But lest you think that Whip It is just a sappy after school special, remember that this is a movie about roller derby. It has action, fantastic skating scenes, and tough self-assured women all over the place. In short, it’s a fun movie that (thankfully) isn’t just drivel and fluff.

What do I mean by Jesus as magic wand? It can be as simple as needing to surround ourselves with the idea of or name of Jesus as if it is a charm. It’s the Christian radio stations that have quotas for how often the name of Jesus must be repeated in songs each hour. It is the churches that insist that the only proper Sunday service is endless repetitions of an alter call where the name of Jesus is to believed in. I’ve heard sermons that dig deep into scripture or help develop spiritually whole people derided because they didn’t include the magic gospel formula. Or the responses to the recent Sparkhouse video about sparking new life in faith communities that criticized it because Jesus wasn’t mentioned enough. Or when a book comes out on say social justice issues and it gets negative reviews because it doesn’t include a gospel presentation as its main focus. I’m sorry that’s like criticizing Calculus textbook for not including a full history of mathematics. Such things are assumed as given. (And btw, I did include a (brief) summary of the gospel message in Everyday Justice – so, critics, back off.)

But as amusing as quotas and shallow baby food sermons may be, where I find this fetishization of Jesus to be most dangerous is in the realm of personal faith. It’s when people are told to “claim the name of Jesus” or to “believe in the healing power of Jesus” in order to deal with depression or marital problems or whatever. I’m all for mystery and the power of prayer and all that – but seriously what do those phrases even mean? By claiming the name of Jesus do I just expect him to work like a magical spell – I say his name with enough conviction and poof everythings better? If it doesn’t work then I just must not be doing it right (i.e. I don’t have enough faith or I’m living in sin). I get it that Jesus heals – I fully believe that. What I can’t buy is that it happens by magic. Healing takes work – it hurts and it requires our effort. I’m reminded of that cliched sermon illustration of the people caught in a flood waiting to be rescued. Each time a boat or helicopter comes to get them, they turn them away saying God will take care of them. Of course they die and in heaven challenge God as to why he didn’t care for them. He replies that he sent boats and a helicopter, why didn’t they take them. People are so convinced that Jesus is so hyper-spiritual and other-wordly that we’ve forgotten that he has to work through the real world. That we are his servants, caring for others and for ourselves. Sure, he empowers and guides us, but not so that we can be lazy and expect fairy-godmother-like intervention. I hurt for those who have been sold that lie. Those they reject therapy or treatments or services because they are waiting of Jesus to suddenly deliver a better life.

Jesus is not a fetish. Jesus is not a magic wand. Following him takes work. His name shouldn’t just be a charm or a mantra. We have to actually look at him and choose to do the dirty work of being like him. That means taking responsibility for our actions, for our hurt, and for the hurt in the world. We are following a guide not clicking our ruby-slippers together waiting to be whisked away. Jesus is real and powerful – we shouldn’t cheapen him by reducing him to trite nonsense. Getting our panties in a bunch because his name isn’t mentioned enough on the radio or a sermon or book doesn’t list the magic formula to get to heaven is a waste of time. Praying for Jesus to save your marriage is pointless unless you take steps to make it happen. Asking Jesus to comfort the poor is mockery unless we are out there being his hands and feet.

So I’m sick and tired of people saying I don’t care about Jesus because I don’t treat him like a household idol to be invoked and ignored at whim. I want to actually follow Jesus – which takes a lot more work and looks vastly different than flicking my magical Jesus wand.