Battlestar RULES

best. show. ever.

here's the Admiral of the Battlestar Galactica (Edward James Olmos) talks about race as I understand it.



thanks to Bryce for the find.

Layers

just finished watching an episode of Joan of Arcadia...and this particular episode stood out. the episode was in season one called Death Be Not Whatever (2003) i was really struck by the last conversation between God and Joan on the bus.

SET UP: Joan talks to God, Joan learns a boy she's babysitting is dying of Cystic Fibrosis and one of her best friend's mom died, Joan is really angry:

Joan Girardi: A lot of what happens here really sucks, so much for your...perfect system.
[pause]
Joan Girardi: Can you see me being really mad at you right now?
Cute Boy God: Yes.
Joan Girardi: Why does it have to be so hard?
Cute Boy God: What specifically?
Joan Girardi: Being alive, let's start there.
Cute Boy God: You wish you weren't alive?
Joan Girardi: No! I...I don't know. I wish...it didn't...hurt so much.
Cute Boy God: It hurts because you feel it, Joan...because you're alive. You love people, that generates a lot of power, a lot of energy. The same kind of energy that binds atoms together, we've all seen what happens when you try to pry them apart.
Joan Girardi: So, if I don't get attached to people then...it won't hurt so much?
Cute Boy God: No, it's in your nature to get attached to people, I put that in the recipe. It's when you guys try to ignore that...when you try to go it alone, that's when it gets ugly. It's hell.
Joan Girardi: It's Hell? Like the Hell?
Cute Boy God: Oh look, your house. Go on, Joan, people are waiting for you...
(Joan exits the bus with no clear answer and looks puzzled)

humans are funny.

maybe for us the pain of separation is easier to bear than the pain of attachment. we get so wrapped up in our identities, those layers at play who we THINK make up who we are... but that's not the full story. like the song says "your caste, your class, your country, sect, name or your tribe, there's people always dying trying to keep them alive".



these things are a part of our identity, but we must go beyond that. we must help each other regardless of these identities... and help is fluid, it moves around like light. and a little bit is a good thing, and it doesn't stop.

thank you, dear readers, for providing light to me on who i am and who i am perceived to be and i hope i'm providing help to you in the articulation of who you are. dialogue is key to realizing our interconnectedness, it is key to our humanization and prevents systematic DEhumanization.

but these are just my rantings and babblings and i recognize i'm "privileged" with an optimistic and idealistic worldview ;-) i could be WAY off.

what are your thoughts?

Bias & Culture

pulling largely from a lecture given by Nestor Medina here at LTS, i think it's time to talk about Bias and Culture.

lots of talk about culture, but how best can we define it?

there's many ways, i'll attempt to define it here and then discuss what it means to COEXIST.

Culture is 1. a sum total of rules that shape belief, communication, and thinking, 2. refers to particular ways of thinking, acting, and organizing aspects of housing, technology, art, family dynamics, and science, 3. gives coherence and totality in relation to the rest of the world and is transmitted from one generation to the next.

or as my Giradian buddy Bryce would define it: culture is what keeps you from retributively killing people.

example of two cultures coming together: A Danish man and Egyptian man go to play a game of billards. When asked (by a third party) how good they are at billards the Dane replies "I've played before" and the Egyptian replies "I'm very good at this game." Both exhibit their culture... Danish culture values humility where Egyptian culture values embellishment. Imagine the surprise and potential conflict when the Dane throughly thrashes the Egyptian.

now based on these definitions and this understanding of "culture" i would say that one cannot get outside of one's cultural bias. here are some ways of thinking about culture historically in terms of one's "Holy Scriptures" according to the Medina lecture:

Acculturation: Taking a book from another culture and placing it in one's own: i.e. the Bible is Angelo (although it was written by the Hebrews amid their pressures from Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman Cultures). or as Yael pointed out, the Christians claiming the Torah as THEIRS but largely ignoring and dismissing it.

Enculturation: Our way of thinking is the best! The Qu'ran is Arabic therefore one must be Arabic to be Muslim or the Gospel is Angelo Culture, therefore one must become Angelo to be Christian. This is a false assumption and we've seen the effects on the world in missionaries and Colonial though processes.

Inculturation: Use resonate images to convert other cultures. You guys believe in charity? WE DO TOO! Here's where our scriptures are doing what y'all already are. This is apologetics and falsely thinks that the scripture can be removed from the culture.

Interculturation: Naming own culture specifically and seeing the positives and negatives. i believe this is the best way. when we talk about things, it's best to say "As a white, progressive Christian i see this issue this way" or "As an atheist woman" or "as a Muslim from Egypt" here it helps either party figure out how best to frame the interaction and the friction that occurs from both parties involved.

this is important to do as we're making assumptions about the other... what we should do is to name our assumptions from the get go, question the person we are in dialogue with, and let the "other" fill in their own blanks. for example, when coming to me and knowing that i'm a christian, don't think i'm a creationist, or think the Bible is THE word of GOD, or that i send other faiths to hell. i don't hold either belief as i believe in evolution and that the word of God is in the Bible amid the cultural bias and baggage.

The Garbage District

Here's the wiki article on the Legend of St Simon the Cobbler.

This district is named Zabaleen (Garbage collectors in Arabic), so literally, this is "Trash City". There are over forty thousand people living there.It's dusty and has narrow dirt lanes. Here families sort and recycle the garbage produced by Cairo's burgeoning population of around 25 million (which goes up 1 million every 6 months!). There is an odor about the village, but because it was mild, it wasn't too bad.

Thinking about our visit, i can't help but think of the criticism of the movie "Slum Dog Millionare" (sent to me by Mr. Chris Eden). The Slate article What, Exactly, Is Slumdog Millionaire? mentions that:

A columnist at the London Times called it "poverty porn," bringing up the question of exploitation that has largely been elided in stateside discussions.

i think it sums up our visit exactly! just like the film, it gave us overtones of a real life situation and context but it never gets into the reality and deeper issues of the context. i'm happy to have gone but realize i must do more work in trying to figure out the reality that i brushed up against.

i think this says alot about ppl's personalities as well. some will go to the movie, see it, be entertained, and then not really think about it. same with the trip. others will go to the movie or on a trip, and then chew on it, get books on the subject, really chase it down.

isn't that what we see in seminary as well? ppl going to class and either not listen, have the info go in one ear and out the other, or actively pursue the info and challenge it and be transformed by it.

some of my fellow classmates had no questions about this part of the trip.. i on the other hand, couldn't let this issue rest. I asked our tour guide, Romani, a million questions about this area, the people, the culture of the neighborhood, whether they had steady electricity (they do), and if they could move out or not (they can!). i'm not saying i'm better, just different in the reaction.

the point of this post is that the last thing we should say is "awww, they live in unhygenic conditions, let's have a pity-party." in fact, i think we should be setting up similar communities in landfills across the US! i marveled at the brilliance and ingenuity of those living in the district. it challenged my assumptions and made me want to dive deeper.

i hope it's done the same for you!

Egypt for Beginners

I just got back from Egypt for my cross-cultural experience for seminary. 18 women and 4 men, now I understand the concept of fraternity! :-) It's not a mission trip, we go to get a better handle on our culture and Christianity in the larger context of the world. Food was great and I have PLENTY of stories to share.

here are my pix from the trip.. all of them, all at once.

I call Steve "Wadi" (which is a dry river bed that flash floods every now and then) cause it fits his personality. He's an all or nothing kinda guy!

the videos are here on my Youtube channel, but i will be post them on the blog with commentary that will hopefully provide even more insight to those who wanna learn about the Egyptian culture and history. here's the video from the first day:



it's interesting when one hits the ground what initial observations one makes. here i noted that it's interesting to be "different" and stared at by little kids. we were even followed! plus add in the shock of 25 million people in one city with jet lag and holy moly! but that priviledge was with me most of the trip. some people go through their whole lives like that, always in the 'other' category. i only have a vague understanding of this and am no where near understanding what people in this position go through on a regular basis, but the shock of it was interesting and eye opening.

as Peggie McIntosh stated in her article "White Priviledge: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack"

I realized that, since hierarchies in our society are interlocking, there was most likely a phenomenon of while privilege that was similarly denied and protected. As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage.

it's one thing to see it, it's a whole other thing to experience it. granted this shock wore off after the first day and once we realized that we were 'safe' and that we were also visiting and would be going back to our culture in two weeks time.

Privilege for me is a double-edged sword. some use it to get others to be aware of it for educational purposes as well as part of a good practice of citizenship. others, however, seem to use it to guilt people and gain the upper-hand. there's a fine line between awareness of privilege and white guilt and being an ex-Catholic, i'm not a believer in guilt.

needless to say i'm aware of it, this trip sure helped that. i hope to make others aware and in this awareness, make the grounds for mutually enriching dialogues. i think this will be a main part of my future ministry, awareness and radical hospitality to all 'others' and hopefully in this dialogue and hospitality we see that there is no 'other' only us and our common humanity.

Our Modern Context: The LGBTQ Community and Beyond

Many look to Romans and I Corinthians as evidence that Paul outlaws homosexuality and that is simply not the case. Questions like “should practicing homosexuals be admitted? What responsibilities can they hold?” Paul simply never asks nor answers them. In fact it is doubtful these questions ever occurred to him (Furnish 78).

Science is still struggling as what causes sexual preferences and whether it is genetic or conditioned (Crompton). However, it is clear that homosexuality is not a conscious choice (Freickson 53). The question for our time is not whether homosexuality is “natural or unnatural” nor is it whether homosexuals should be allowed in church (the answer on this is yes) but what behaviors are appropriate in a homosexual lifestyle. There are two possible responses to this question.

A more conservative approach to the acceptance of the LGBTQ community states that they are welcomed but not affirmed. This translates to “you can be a homosexual, but you cannot practice it.” Here the concern about sex is paramount. Tony Campolo is an advocate for this method. He encourages a celibate commitment he interprets Paul as condemning all homosexual eroticism (Campolo 66). He thinks it “arrogant to contradict two millennia of church tradition” and “not to violate biblical admonitions against homosexual eroticism” (Campolo 67-68). I see problems with this interpretation.

Since science has stated that homosexuality is not a choice, I feel that Campolo is going with a “if you can’t beat them, let them in under great restrictions” method. Instead, what we should be concerned with as a church is the idea of porneia. Paul is arguing that porneia is idolatry and the sin of desire leads to excess and exploitation. The passion of desire is part of the dirty polluted cosmos in opposition to God (Martin 67). The best way to avoid the pollution is to have committed partners as safe receptacles for their sexual overflow (Martin 67).

Paul wishes all had his gift of celibacy, but it is better to “marry than to burn” (7:9). Sex is a meaningful part of marriage and Paul recognizes the mutual responsibility in matters of sex (7:3-4) (Furnish 34). Paul could not have imagined two members of the same sex entering in a sexual union as equals as his understanding of male/female expressions of gender are not our ideas of gender. I would advocate a full acceptance of LGBTQ members under the same rules that heterosexual couples are called to follow as Christians. This does not go against all of church teachings. The Roman Catholic Church has taught that sexual intercourse has a twofold purpose: for procreation and for unity of two free spirits (Gomes 171).

If Mr. Campolo and the Catholic Church argued that heterosexual couples who can’t conceive must be celibate, I would see his point, but they do not, thus revealing a hetero-bias. I argue that Christian expectations be placed on all couples, namely that married couples are permanent, monogamous, faithful, and intimate. These rules are to be followed and celebrated whether heterosexual or homosexual. This opens the door to a discussion on divorce, as almost 50% of all marriages today end in divorce. Being a child of a divorce, I would say ground this in the same relational framework Paul provides in I Corinthians, namely that relationships are never exploitive or excessive.

Same-sex relationships have the same potential for sacramental meaning and power (Gomes 172). Not all have the gift of Paul’s celibacy, but as the apostle writes to the community at Corinth, this gift should not be elevated over any other gift of God. Love and sex are both gifts from God that we should rejoice in yet are aware of the boundaries of relationships. Any exploitive or excessive actions and behaviors are to be resisted and spoken out against. This does not go against Paul or the Church’s teachings, but fulfills them.

It fulfills them by opening up the gospel to the “other” which fits the goal of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. We as Christians are called to side with the oppressed, the exploited, and to resist excess. We are called to befriend the stranger as that which we do to the least of these we do unto Christ (Matt 25:45).
What we do have an excess of is God’s grace and love, and we are guilty of the sin of excess if we think God’s love is something we can keep to ourselves and not spread around. We are called to risk everything to gain others, not to bury or hide our gifts (Matt 25: 14-30). For our sake, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, may we respond to this call.

Thanks to RJ for this video

Exegetical Paper on 1 Cor 6:9-11

While I'm in Egypt, I've decided to post my final paper on 1 Cor 6:9-11. I won't post the whole thing, just highlights over this month. For those not familar with the text:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul lists vices in 1 Cor. 6: 9-11 and at first glance they seem disconnected from the whole of the letter. This paper will seek to fit this list into the larger structure of the letter as well as shed light on Paul’s socio-historical context. Through this I seek to understand Paul’s theological view of sexual ethics. I would like to take a social-science look at Christianity in this regard to explore further the need for boundaries in groups and how the current church is fighting over where those boundaries should be.

This should be an interesting discussion, stick around, won't you? Here's some questions:

How do you interpret this vice list? What purpose could it serve? Is it really talking about homosexuality? What does this mean for the church today?

Why I don't like "Biblical" Anything

A while back, I gave my Thoughts on Biblical Maculinity in response to Brad over at Confessions of a Seminarian. I get really bothered anytime someone tries to label something "Biblical" like "I believe in Biblical masculinity/feminism/marriage/family values/ethics/etc."

I touched on this discomfort in that post, but it wasn't fully articulated. I will try to do that here.

ONe of the hardest problems is interpreting the Bible to our modern context. some will say "The Bible doesn't need interpreting, you just read what's written" advocating a literal interpretation. I will now say that the majority of the people who say this ARE NOT reading the bible literally, but traditionally. Just take Christmas for example... the innkeeper who tells Mary and Joe to hit up the manger, Mary remaining a virgin and not having any children OR sex, that there are 3 wisemen, and Jesus is raised to be a carpenter in Nazareth are NOT in the Bible! Those are traditions PLACED on the Bible... Sola Scriptura indeed.

Plus we need to look at the social structures assumed in the Bible and ask, are an essential part of God's revelation? We no longer live in a world of absolute monarchies, slavery, tribal and clan warfare, patriarchy nor animal sacrifice in their ancient Middle Eastern forms. Instead of an agrarian world we're urban, instead of assumed male superiority there is women's rights movements, instead of absolute monarchy democracy is a pervasive ideal, instead of an all-encompassing religious, economic, political and social legal system we have patchwork of laws that govern different aspects of life.

The story of God in the Bible is inseparable from an understanding of the kind of society Israel was meant to be nor can God not be removed from Israel's context and view of the world.

However, look at how progressive Israel despite the context! Within the context of slavery, Israel was to free all slaves and give them a nest egg every 7 years (Duet 15). within monarchy, they knew how this system would be a form of oppression (1 Sam 8) and there's no greater king than God (2 Sam 12). In an agricultural economy, Israel was to ensure everyone had a fair share of the wealth and resources (Lev 25). Within the context of patriarchy and polygamy, Israel was to protect the rights of women (Duet 21:10-14; 22:13-29).

How do we bridge the 2,000+ year gap? I would say the last thing we need to do is recreate the context of ancient Israel! We can't get out of our own symbols and cultural context and we read Israel's story and Jesus' story through our own cultural experience. We CAN'T apply the Bible literally because we'd ultimately being applying our own bias and prejudices. Our experience is not on a higher plain than the scriptures but it is our beginning and ending.

We cannot approach the Bible as a narrow rule book that sets out models of behavior for every single circumstance. What does the Bible say about a flat tire on the side of the highway? What does the Bible say about interacting with societies completely alien from your own? Some stuff, surely, but the application isn't exact. Every time we pick up the Bible there needs to be serious consideration of context, culture, and other communal structures.

Combining the story of the Bible with the story of our culture in such a way that our praxis becomes the product of wisdom. There is no easy way nor one way to accomplish this. There are aspects of the Bible in everything we do because we are a saturated culture, however, calling something like it's the authoritive BIBLICAL anything is just patently untrue and makes for bad marketing.

Victims Part II

A quote from Charles Swindoll

The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say I do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill.

It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is that we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for the day. We cannot change our past. We cannot change the fact people will act in a certain way. We cannont change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude.

I'm convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it.

As my wife always says, "you can't change people, only how you react to them." Jesus had one heck of an attitude. To be able to sit with people he prolly wanted to shake and yell "SNAP OUT OF IT!" but he didn't. He met them where they were and changed their lives, our lives, and the course of human history.

may we see to be such beacons of positive attitude and loving empathy.

There's One Thing I Wanna Know...

This weekend we visited the DC area! I gave a prayer at Little River UCC and thanked them for my scholarship... the Hubert S. Beckwith Scholarship. Great congregation. Also hung out with Kate's sister and her family. Great to see how my neices and nephew look at the world and how they've developed into the fine people they have become.

Andrew, my bro-in-law, is the son and step-son of two methodist pastors. He stated something like "when my dads went to seminary they commented on how some of their classmates use seminary as a form of free therapy, is that the case for you?" That comment made me step back and think... i think some people are using it that way and that goes along with what i'm talking about victims... my buddy Jason also brought up the topic of victims and how it's even in the business world... "I couldn't make my sales this week cause no one would pick up the phone, it's not my fault!" and other comments to that affect.

so now i have some new things to ponder and chew on.. great trip! this week is my worship week as well! we've been planing two worship services to go on in the chapel and this is the culmination of all of the groups hardwork. looking forward to see how these services are received. update cha on friday.. but until then!

Go see this movie:



And ask yourself this question... found in the chorus of this song:


oh.. and this question: where are the strong and who are the trusted?

Victims

Interesting phenom with people finding and owning their own victimhood this year in seminary.

I think it's healthy to find and recognize how a system excludes and oppresses people, no matter what! Issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc should be examined to the Nth degree. What I weary of is the Stockholm Syndrome.

The Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which they have been placed. What I mean in this context here at seminary is when people fall in love with their victimhood and wield their victimhood like a club.

as the saying goes, hurt people hurt people.

It's ironic that these people are now victimizing others with their victimization! they have become what they hate.



Bryce, my seminary library buddy, wrote in his review of James Alison's book Faith Beyond Resentment, "When we self-righteously occupy the position of the victim, demanding retribution and recompense for the abuses we have suffered at the hands of human authorities with their violent enforcement mechanisms, we are not able to move into the area of identifying with the oppressors as our brothers and sisters who are also trapped in the same systems that we occupy."

in other words, for full reconciliation to happen we must give up our victimhood. now this might look like a white male trying to keep his priviledge by dismissing people's experience due to racial, gender, or other issues... i assure you i am not. what I am saying is that if i'm to meet you where you are, i'd hope you'd respect me enough to do the same. no boxes or stereotypes... just two people with their experience looking for common ground.

using a personal example: i have been victimized and you didn't do it! the fact someone is Catholic will not color my opinion of them but i sure do have a slant on the Catholic church! i will share that experience and see if it matches/clashes with theirs. i've met some kindred spirits and i've met people who absolutely LOVE the Catholic church and i'm friends with both and we understand each other. shouldn't this understanding be what we're after in terms of race/gender/LGBT issues/cultural/geo-political/religious/etc. issues in general?!

how far off am i?

Thanks to Bryce for the link and being a sounding board... for a fuller, more thoughtful discussion, check out Bryce's post on Alison's book.

Privileged?

I've been reading Stuff White People Like for a few months now. The chair of the committe on diversity here at LTS recently got wind of it and asked what we thought about it... here is my response as well as a fellow collegue.

Some parts of SWPL i find really funny, others i find really insulting. i think it's useful despite that it furthers a privileged POV and it really isn't original as Jerry Sienfeld and Chris Rock have been pointing these things that white people do and like at a deeper, funnier and thought-provoking level.

after talking with a collegue about white priviledge at length she told me "i react to you because of what you symbolize to me, not how you act. your actions are very supportive of not only the LGBT community but in all communities in general." i responded "and what do we call reacting to people because of what they symbolize to us? it usually ends with an -ism attached to it."

priviledge is a double-edge sword and i think it's a very useful tool but is too easily wielded the other way and it shuts down a conversation before one can really develop. i think SWPL helps get past the intial boundaries through humor and stereotyping the priviledged.

but how useful is SWPL? Our own PA Dutch Asian (her description) Courtney Harvey, head of Leadership NOW and is pretty much the smartest person I know, had this critique of it:

Whiteness which everyone may not participate in fully but very rarely challenge.This is the important question I ask- Do you think it is better for the SWPL to exist or not? Yes, SWPL is flawed and may support Whiteness rather than deconstructing privilege and power. However, I think the very act of looking at a culture of Whiteness challenges the idea that there isn't one and that the "neutral setting" most White people take for granted has been created by upwardly mobile White people.

If I am completely honest this is the material culture I participate in. Furthermore, I don't think about privilege or power every time I get coffee, send an email on my mac or quote Colbert. I want to be reasonably critical without being completely hypocritical.

Does it do more good to participate in a White material culture without defining it
in the public sphere - to be quiet about the share of whiteness I have
bought into - or is it better to put it out there to be discussed,
critiqued and challenged. I opt for the 2nd choice.

i've found SWPL a useful conversation starter to get into the true issues. sometimes it's better to start in the shallow end of the pool and wade to the deep as some people panic when you jump right into the deep end.

what do y'all think?