I'm currently reading "Planet of Slums" by Mike Davis for class. I must say that when I heard lectures about the coming urbanization of the world in the near future, I was somewhat excited because I LOVE city life.
But what I am learning from this book is that urbanization will not turn the planet into a world-wide connected NYC, but rather the world will look more like a shantytown. After spending time in Africa, I have seen first hand the conditions of what this impoverished, slum-like world will one day look like, and it is not beautiful. Africa is beautiful, but slums are not.
As I think about my struggle to decide between going and abroad and being an urban missionary, I'm finding that I may not necessarily have to decide between the two. In the new world in which we are entering, it will be necessary to both cross-cultural and prepared to interact with the poor.
Yet the change from the life of agriculture and industry reinvigorates and supports the notions of universal education. Getting by in the world will be competitive and the children of the two-thirds deserve to be educated when other viable and healthful options are unavailable to them.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Limits on Trust and Judgement
We all have those people in our lives who say things that are not true about us. Some do so amongst sincere concern, but through a theological, sociological, or educational lens that betrays us. Their lens may be toxic.
Once you are able to get your bearings and realize that the lens is toxic, the question emerges if you are to go on and discount everything the person says? Perhaps the word "everything" is somewhat strong. But when someone shows the potential to hurt you and/or bring in damaging thoughts, then at what point do you give their view some validity?
It has been helpful to me over the years to remember the Scripture from the Beatitudes that commands Christians to "not give your pearls to swines." The command comes in the context of judgement, so I've found it helpful not to allow perceiving swine to judge me. But like I say, the question remains as to whether framing them as swine should always stand?
Once you are able to get your bearings and realize that the lens is toxic, the question emerges if you are to go on and discount everything the person says? Perhaps the word "everything" is somewhat strong. But when someone shows the potential to hurt you and/or bring in damaging thoughts, then at what point do you give their view some validity?
It has been helpful to me over the years to remember the Scripture from the Beatitudes that commands Christians to "not give your pearls to swines." The command comes in the context of judgement, so I've found it helpful not to allow perceiving swine to judge me. But like I say, the question remains as to whether framing them as swine should always stand?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Uganda Blog
I have created a blog that parallel's much of my trip to Uganda. Some of the post I may re-post here, but I want to post the link so that those who want to follow some of what happed while we were away may do so.
http://ugandapilgrimage2009.blogspot.com/
http://ugandapilgrimage2009.blogspot.com/
On Forgiveness
Yesterday I found myself in an uproar. I was nervous and guilty about underperforming for a job. I was overwhelmed by financial difficulty. I felt burdened and unfit to apply for work-study positions doing menial tasks during precious study hours when I could barely even find enough time to study without that added burden last year. And then, every word of discouragement I had ever heard in the past about not being good enough came bounding back towards me.
After finding my way out of the train wreck yesterday through praying for truth and through being honest with myself and others, I have found that my experience brought up serious issues about forgiveness.
It sounds surprising that my issue over forgiveness wasn't primarily ordered toward myself, but toward those who have hurt me in the past by wounding me with the "you're not good enough" lectures and comments.
When lies come to me, when old wounds that I have forgiven return unexpectedly, I picture that I should say something like a writer once commented that she imagined Adam saying in the garden. When the serpent came up to tell him lies, he should have said--umm, why are you trying to tell me different things about God? Didn't he give me authority to name you yesterday? I feel in a similar place where I should say, "umm lie, didn't I already confess you yesterday, a few weeks/months/years ago?"
Yesterday when I felt inadequate, I found myself rehashing the words of a teacher who said I was lazy when he didn't know my full story. We reconciled and I forgave him. I replayed an older adult correcting my English. I had forgiven that person too. But they all came back.
It makes me wonder sometimes if forgiveness is similar to the soteriological model of God forgiving us. There is a justification-like immediate forgiveness based on who Christ is. But then there is a second tier like sanctificaiton where there is a process to fully reflecting the initial stage. If I have to constantly remind myself of my standing before God when I self-condemn myself or overcongratulate myself, then won't I also need to remind myself of who I have forgiven?
According to this analysis I understand a little deeper that forgiveness may look just as messy as salvation. Just as messy as the Bible's full story about debunking lies of Satan. I'm hoping that next time I hear these voices of condemnation again that it will take me a shorter amount of time to come to the truth by realizing that many of these voices simply need to flee because I've already forgiven them.
After finding my way out of the train wreck yesterday through praying for truth and through being honest with myself and others, I have found that my experience brought up serious issues about forgiveness.
It sounds surprising that my issue over forgiveness wasn't primarily ordered toward myself, but toward those who have hurt me in the past by wounding me with the "you're not good enough" lectures and comments.
When lies come to me, when old wounds that I have forgiven return unexpectedly, I picture that I should say something like a writer once commented that she imagined Adam saying in the garden. When the serpent came up to tell him lies, he should have said--umm, why are you trying to tell me different things about God? Didn't he give me authority to name you yesterday? I feel in a similar place where I should say, "umm lie, didn't I already confess you yesterday, a few weeks/months/years ago?"
Yesterday when I felt inadequate, I found myself rehashing the words of a teacher who said I was lazy when he didn't know my full story. We reconciled and I forgave him. I replayed an older adult correcting my English. I had forgiven that person too. But they all came back.
It makes me wonder sometimes if forgiveness is similar to the soteriological model of God forgiving us. There is a justification-like immediate forgiveness based on who Christ is. But then there is a second tier like sanctificaiton where there is a process to fully reflecting the initial stage. If I have to constantly remind myself of my standing before God when I self-condemn myself or overcongratulate myself, then won't I also need to remind myself of who I have forgiven?
According to this analysis I understand a little deeper that forgiveness may look just as messy as salvation. Just as messy as the Bible's full story about debunking lies of Satan. I'm hoping that next time I hear these voices of condemnation again that it will take me a shorter amount of time to come to the truth by realizing that many of these voices simply need to flee because I've already forgiven them.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Musings on Power
Food for thought from Culture Making:
In the paradox of Jesus Christ--Yeshua from Nazareth, anointed One of history--the paradox of God's cultural agenda is summed up most perfectly and completely. God is for the poor--the oppressed, the widow and the orphan--and he is for humanity in our collective poverty, our ultimate powerlessness in the face of sin and death. But he makes known his redemptive purposes for us through both the powerless and the powerful, using both to accomplish his purposes. When God acts in culture, he uses both the powerful and the powerless alongside one another rather than using one against the other. To mobilize the powerless against the powerful would be revolution; to mobilize the powerful against the powerless would simply confirm "the way of the world." But to bring them into partnership is the true sign of God's paradoxical and graceful intervention into the human story.
I believe this pattern--God working with the poor and the rich, the powerless and the powerful--serves as a kind of template for seeking out what God might be doing in our human cultures. When elites use their privilege to create cultural goods that primarily serve other elites, that is nothing but the way of hte world, the standard operating procedure of culture. Furthermore, even when the culturally powerful deign to share their blessings with the powerless, but in ways that leave the powerless dependent and needy, this too is simply another marginally kinder version of the way of the world. Likewise, when the powerless cultivate and create culture that simply reinforces their oppression without bringing any real change in the horizons of possibility and impossibility, or when those is desperate circumstances rise up against the powerful, simply creating new structures of power in their place, we rightly recognize what is happening as business as usual. (pg. 209)
I first came to recognize many of these truths while reading Shelby Steele's The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America (1990). Steele argues that much of the problem in race relations centers around the idea of power.
Both races instinctively understand that to lose innocence is to lose power (in relation to each other). To be innocent someone must be guilty, a natural law that leads the races to forge their innocence on each other's backs. The inferiority of the black always makes the white man superior; the evil might of whites makes blacks good. This pattern means that both races have a hidden investment in racisim and racial disharmony despite their good intentions to the contrary. Power defines their relations, and power requires innocence, which, in turn, requires racism and racial division. (pg. 6)
To follow Jesus faithfully, powerful and powerless, black and white, innocent and guilty all must converge as they do on the cross. We are guilty, He is innocent. We are God's "innocent" children, beguiled by sin and Satan. Jesus is powerful, we are powerless. During the passion, it appeared that the people were powerful and Jesus powerless. But as the Messianic kingdom call goes: the lion will lay down with the lamb, children will play over an asp's habitat.
After reading Sam Wells' Power and Passion, it is clear that the cross and resurrection were all about power. If this is so, why aren't we spending more time identifying our roles of power?
In the paradox of Jesus Christ--Yeshua from Nazareth, anointed One of history--the paradox of God's cultural agenda is summed up most perfectly and completely. God is for the poor--the oppressed, the widow and the orphan--and he is for humanity in our collective poverty, our ultimate powerlessness in the face of sin and death. But he makes known his redemptive purposes for us through both the powerless and the powerful, using both to accomplish his purposes. When God acts in culture, he uses both the powerful and the powerless alongside one another rather than using one against the other. To mobilize the powerless against the powerful would be revolution; to mobilize the powerful against the powerless would simply confirm "the way of the world." But to bring them into partnership is the true sign of God's paradoxical and graceful intervention into the human story.
I believe this pattern--God working with the poor and the rich, the powerless and the powerful--serves as a kind of template for seeking out what God might be doing in our human cultures. When elites use their privilege to create cultural goods that primarily serve other elites, that is nothing but the way of hte world, the standard operating procedure of culture. Furthermore, even when the culturally powerful deign to share their blessings with the powerless, but in ways that leave the powerless dependent and needy, this too is simply another marginally kinder version of the way of the world. Likewise, when the powerless cultivate and create culture that simply reinforces their oppression without bringing any real change in the horizons of possibility and impossibility, or when those is desperate circumstances rise up against the powerful, simply creating new structures of power in their place, we rightly recognize what is happening as business as usual. (pg. 209)
I first came to recognize many of these truths while reading Shelby Steele's The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America (1990). Steele argues that much of the problem in race relations centers around the idea of power.
Both races instinctively understand that to lose innocence is to lose power (in relation to each other). To be innocent someone must be guilty, a natural law that leads the races to forge their innocence on each other's backs. The inferiority of the black always makes the white man superior; the evil might of whites makes blacks good. This pattern means that both races have a hidden investment in racisim and racial disharmony despite their good intentions to the contrary. Power defines their relations, and power requires innocence, which, in turn, requires racism and racial division. (pg. 6)
To follow Jesus faithfully, powerful and powerless, black and white, innocent and guilty all must converge as they do on the cross. We are guilty, He is innocent. We are God's "innocent" children, beguiled by sin and Satan. Jesus is powerful, we are powerless. During the passion, it appeared that the people were powerful and Jesus powerless. But as the Messianic kingdom call goes: the lion will lay down with the lamb, children will play over an asp's habitat.
After reading Sam Wells' Power and Passion, it is clear that the cross and resurrection were all about power. If this is so, why aren't we spending more time identifying our roles of power?
Monday, July 20, 2009
The Man in the Mirror
I know, another MJ post. I'm just as annoyed with my fascination as you probably are. But as I've been revealing in my posts over the last few weeks is that there just might be a deeper reason as to why I'm so fascinated with Michael Jackson.
I youtubed "michael jackson" and "charity" and I watched this gutwrenching video of MJ spending time with little children, the sick, the elderly, and the poor. These were not just the sick of our nation of the sick of the poorest places on Earth for a good publicity photo, but these clips came from around the world. A kiss on the head to child whose burned and mutilated face was wrapped in cloth or a child with a bald chemo head. A nudging hand across the emaciated cheek of a starving child. Christmas gifts given to each child with a hug and a kiss. Michael making funny gestures to make a child laugh through their pain.
Tears began to roll down my cheek. For a few moments I didn't see the King of Pop, but the King of Kings. Surely those actions remind me of the Jesus I know, the Jesus who I want to know deeper and the Jesus I want to emulate.
As I prepare for two weeks in Uganda, I'm both haunted and encouraged by the love of these two men. Can I love like that? Can I put my own tender body into the path of the sick? Can I have the imagination and the hope to cheer up small children? Will I have the courage to touch and to kiss bodies that no longer seem to be capable of harboring human life?
This is what it looks like to follow Jesus. I'm thankful for these visual reminders of the possible so that I can drawer nearer to truthful and couragous faith.
Other noteworthy ways of seeing Jesus in MJ:
--"We Are the World" I don't think it really can be said enough, but MJ gave much of his money to charity
--Although the relationship between Jackson, Neverland and children has been tainted by scandal, I find myself in awe that the glamorous lifestyle that Jackson enjoyed was ALWAys shared with the less fortunate. I LOVE that underpriviledged kids got to experience the wonder of childhood and amusement because MJ opened his home to them.
--It may have led to his downfall, but MJ was an advocate for the sick. He was often known for footing the bill for folks who couldn't afford their expensive medical needs.
--Most common place that paparazzi would find MJ in his final years: taking his kids to the zoo or Barnes and Noble. Gotta love the quality time between parent and child.
--I think most theologians would get a kick out of his lyrics: for the sin problem all of the worlds problems start with "the man in the mirror," in "heal the world" he asks for the nations to turn their swords into plowshares, in "earth song" we see him calling for the restoration of the world that God had put man in charge of--the song and video are definately charged with biblical imagery. There are so many other songs I could mention, but I'll leave it there to encourage you to find some of these things on your own.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Culture Worth Making and Preserving
Much of my latest posts on culture have been under the influence of a book called Culture Making: Rediscovering Our Creative Calling by Andy Crouch. The book has been quite a challenge for me.
Crouch outlines the idea that our mandate to create culture begins in Genesis and is a fundamental part of our identity as image bearers of the Creator God. A point that I have paid little attention to, until now, is the continuity of the role of cultural goods. In Revelation, there will be a new heaven and a new earth. The people of God will congregate and live in a city where God is present with us. Here is how it is described in Rev 21:22-27 and I'm highlighting a few things that I want to focus on:
I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. Its gates will never be shut by day--and there will be no night there. People will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. But nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Crouch indicates that people and "the glory of kings and the nations" are both eternal. In the evangelical community, we are very keen on pointing folks to the eternality of people, but little thought has gone toward thinking out what the glorious goods that the nations will bring in. Crouch makes an interesting distinction between people and cultural goods. First, people come into heaven through faith and being named in the Lamb's book of life. Secondly, cultural goods will be purified as well and will also be present in the new heaven and new earth.
Given the focus on Michael Jackson in the last few weeks, I'll use him as a hypothetical example of questions that are raised for me due to Crouch's points.
So if MJ has real faith, he'll show up in heaven and be present in the Kingdom of heaven in a purified and heavenly body. But if MJ does not show up in heaven due to not having faith, then according to the presence of cultural goods, will we as Americans be moonwalking in heaven, given that the moonwalk is a quite rad, creative wonder that mimics our Creator? An even cooler thought to me (which Crouch also points out) is that if the "kings" of the Kingdom of heaven are "the least of these" then these amazing breakdancing moves (which Jackson self-admitted came from cultures of poverty and dancing he'd seen from urban children) then this amount of creativity can definately reflect the values of Our Creator. But what aspects of culture are "unclean"? Will be breakdancing like MJ minus the crotch grabbing? Or is our American culture unduly sensitive about a nature feature of the body that God gave us for procreation? What qualifies as national glory?
So many questions!! It radically messes with my head of what I think about culture. I have a love-hate affair with culture. There are things that excite me, things I don't get, things that I take for granted, etc. My eyes feel newly opened to experiencing culture that may be a part of our daily living in the kingdom. What gifts and cultural goods will we bring to honor our King at the Wedding of the Lamb? At times it is easier for me to think about this in terms of other cultures or attributes, but not physical goods, especially not American physical and cultural goods.
As confused as I feel about this, I feel that the cultural outpouring, grief and celebration we have seen honoring one of our own cultural (ugh, I can't think of another word other than icons) in the person of Michael Jackson Crouch's way of thinking about the eternality of cultural goods such as music, dance, etc., gives real meaning to what folks are feeling. "It's not so bad because he's in heaven." "But his music will live on forever." Normally I roll my eyes at such things, but perhaps I'm the one who is missing out on a piece of eternity and connection with collective admiration and cultural impact.
Crouch outlines the idea that our mandate to create culture begins in Genesis and is a fundamental part of our identity as image bearers of the Creator God. A point that I have paid little attention to, until now, is the continuity of the role of cultural goods. In Revelation, there will be a new heaven and a new earth. The people of God will congregate and live in a city where God is present with us. Here is how it is described in Rev 21:22-27 and I'm highlighting a few things that I want to focus on:
I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. Its gates will never be shut by day--and there will be no night there. People will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. But nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Crouch indicates that people and "the glory of kings and the nations" are both eternal. In the evangelical community, we are very keen on pointing folks to the eternality of people, but little thought has gone toward thinking out what the glorious goods that the nations will bring in. Crouch makes an interesting distinction between people and cultural goods. First, people come into heaven through faith and being named in the Lamb's book of life. Secondly, cultural goods will be purified as well and will also be present in the new heaven and new earth.
Given the focus on Michael Jackson in the last few weeks, I'll use him as a hypothetical example of questions that are raised for me due to Crouch's points.
So if MJ has real faith, he'll show up in heaven and be present in the Kingdom of heaven in a purified and heavenly body. But if MJ does not show up in heaven due to not having faith, then according to the presence of cultural goods, will we as Americans be moonwalking in heaven, given that the moonwalk is a quite rad, creative wonder that mimics our Creator? An even cooler thought to me (which Crouch also points out) is that if the "kings" of the Kingdom of heaven are "the least of these" then these amazing breakdancing moves (which Jackson self-admitted came from cultures of poverty and dancing he'd seen from urban children) then this amount of creativity can definately reflect the values of Our Creator. But what aspects of culture are "unclean"? Will be breakdancing like MJ minus the crotch grabbing? Or is our American culture unduly sensitive about a nature feature of the body that God gave us for procreation? What qualifies as national glory?
So many questions!! It radically messes with my head of what I think about culture. I have a love-hate affair with culture. There are things that excite me, things I don't get, things that I take for granted, etc. My eyes feel newly opened to experiencing culture that may be a part of our daily living in the kingdom. What gifts and cultural goods will we bring to honor our King at the Wedding of the Lamb? At times it is easier for me to think about this in terms of other cultures or attributes, but not physical goods, especially not American physical and cultural goods.
As confused as I feel about this, I feel that the cultural outpouring, grief and celebration we have seen honoring one of our own cultural (ugh, I can't think of another word other than icons) in the person of Michael Jackson Crouch's way of thinking about the eternality of cultural goods such as music, dance, etc., gives real meaning to what folks are feeling. "It's not so bad because he's in heaven." "But his music will live on forever." Normally I roll my eyes at such things, but perhaps I'm the one who is missing out on a piece of eternity and connection with collective admiration and cultural impact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)