The Underground Railroad

More Songs from the Underground

Talk about songs rising up from the Underground! Check out Songs of Justice: A Global Call to Prayer on Youtube.

It's so true... we cannot untangle song & the rise of justice in the Way of Christ. Song serves as encouragement, as teacher, as direction (literally), as message, as code, as inspiration, as community, as expression, as impression, and so much more. 

May more and more songs of justice keep rising up from our many, many undergrounds that we may hear their call from peak to valley, river to road, cave to mountain top. Amen

 

Wunderkind

In the girls' group I help facilitate on Monday nights, we're discussing what our identity in Christ means. For some, it means learning the meaning of our names; for others, it's flexing skills and putting in practice lifestyles of being part of a royal priesthood; still for others, it's taking a huge step of actually trusting this Invisible God - something adults have a hard enough time with, let alone teenage girls.

All of me will "grow old", but a part of me will never "grow up". As I write stories and poems, I still see myself as a young girl, perhaps sixteen or so, looking deeply for the first time into God, Jesus, His world, and His love. It is wounding... much of His Truth and reality I cannot bear. It is healing... it reveals places I never would have thought were hurt. It is fantastic... in the ordinary everday, in the common life of community, in the boredom and chaos, the ups and downs, there is breathless imagination that only God can stretch into infinity. 

What does this have to do with slavery? I mean, this is a blog about human trafficking isn't it? Well, slavery is an identity -- to be a slave shapes how you see yourself and often, it is a morbid and dying sight. However, even past slavery - to those of us who have never been trafficked - there are fears and oppressors over God's creative identity for us (including ourselves). Some days, even the most faithful of abolitionists need a reminder.

So call me childish (I'd prefer "child-like", if must call me something), but Alanis Morisette's Wunderkind is a Song from the Underground that declares so much of who we are... of who I am. "...destined to serve... destined to roam..." It is a declaration of paradoxes, enigmas, and yet full childlike discovery. Written for the movie The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, I gravitated instantly to the song. You see, I saw myself very much like Lucy Pevencie growing up -- in wonder, in hiding, in exploration, in daring, in danger, but full of mysterious faith and childlike belief. I still do.

I very much believe that "I am a magnet for all kinds of deeper wonderment". 

Will this help end slavery?

Yes.

The mystery of Christ is to be embraced. Once embraced, there's no telling where we will end up. It will be dangerous. BUT... it will be good. Very good.

Cheesy post, perhaps. But today, knowing the very real dangers we're all facing in this struggle for freedom, I needed a childlike perspective speaking truth in ways we adults all too soon forget.

Enjoy.

"Wunderkind" ~ Alanis Morisette

Oh perilous place
Walk backwards toward you
Blink disbelieving eyes chilled to the bone
Most visibly brave
No apprehended gloom
First to take this foot to virgin snow

I am a magnet for all kinds of deeper wonderment
I am a wunderkind ohwowoh
I lift the envelope pushed far enough to believe this
I am a princess on the way to my throne
destined to serve
destined to roam

Oh ominous place
Spellbound and un-childproofed
My least favorite chill to bear alone

Compatriots in place
They’d cringe if I told you
Our best back pocket secret: our bond full blown

I am a magnet for all kinds of deeper wonderment
I am a wunderkind ohwowoh
I am a pioneer naïve enough to believe this
I am a princess on the way to my throne
destined to seek
destined to know

Most beautiful place
Reborn and blown off roof
My view: about face whether, great will be done

I am a magnet for all kinds of deeper wonderment
I am a wunderkind ohwowoh
I am a groundbreaker naïve enough to believe this
I am a princess on the way to my throne

I am a magnet for all kinds of deeper wonderment
I am a wunderkind ohwowoh
I am the Joan of Arc and smart enough to believe this
I am a princess on the way to my throne

Destined to reign, destined to roam
Destined to reign, destined to roam
Ohahahoohah
Ohahahoohah
Destined to reign, destined to roam
Destined to reign, destined to roam

 

Slavery Begins At Home

I've been trying to reconcile Biblical doctrines that have justified slavery during bible times, throughout history, and into today. It's not an easy task. Once I sense I've grabbed onto a valid thread, my mind is assaulted with the sad and broken way Jesus was used to destroy other people.

Today in church it was announced that we would be featuring the movie Courageous in March. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I will refrain from personal comments since I don't have a right to them yet. Comments from brothers and sisters who have seen the film stem from "It was the best movie ever!", and  "We need more films to show what it means to be a dad!", to  "As a black man, why do Christian movies insist on steretyping us again and again?" and "As usual, us Latinos are the labourers and brunts of jokes. This is all white, suburban Christianity has to say about humor?", all the way to the issue of egalitarian parenting v. complementarian. Again... withholding judgement until I see it personally. 

But I did do some digging. The movie has sparked some issue as to the oppression of women and racism, which, for some seems ridiculous and that those who pick up on these perceived themes are missing the point of the whole movie. Possibly. I'm not discounting that. Those who claim these themes are evident insist that this is the true agenda of the film: not that fathers need to be present, but that they need to dominate the family. Possibly. I am not black or Latina, so I have not lived in a cultural setting where my entire people, to this day, are still often seen as "less". But I am a woman, and one that is whole and complete in Christ, and equal to my brothers in Christ.

How does this relate to slavery?

If minority groups, single moms, people of color, and other marginalized groups are suggesting the film is backing a system of thinking that has brought about violence, lies, hatred, oppression, and other "-isms", these are not voices to be ignored. They might not be correct point-for-point, but once again: many of us have not been raised to be ridiculed as a "Spic", or be the "token black" in the media. The Kendrick Brothers, Southern Baptists by association, produced the film and may very well have had one single message to get across: we need dads. Perhaps not. As I kept researching, I saw that the brothers have been linked to Vision Forum, a fundamentalist Christian pro-family group.

So I kept digging. Here are some comments found on "Doug's Blog":

"Adoption isn’t charity, it’s war." (concering the LGBTQ community taking in foster/adoptive children)

"Even as caging and exploiting tribal people for exhibition is wrong (as was famously done in 1904 at the Bronx Zoo to a Congolese pygmy named Ota Benga), so too is elevating their backwards pagan culture as superior to more developed civilizations that owe their advancements to Christian ideals." (referring to how Christians should approach tribal civilizations still present in our world today)

"Our founding fathers intended religion and morality to be the pillars of the new republic, providing the restraint that would allow maximum liberty for the citizenry. Today, this delicate balance of religion and the state has been eroded by a secularist push to isolate Christianity in our culture and render it irrelevant. The choice in our day is a stark one: As a people we either return to our Christian roots or we divorce God altogether. Returning to the principles established by our founders is the way to restore moral sanity and rebuild the foundations that made our nation great." 

There is more to read, and I'll leave you to do so at your leisure. However, when recurring themes of patriarchy, racism, domination, colonization, hyper-nationalism keep appearing, we must understand that these are integral ingredients that create a world ripe for slavery. Why are people still insisting on instilling such values in their children when the bible was taken so far out of context before, used as weaponry even, to "civilize the noble savage", or to degrade gay people as less than human (or doomed to hell), or judge single moms as incomplete families?

The oppression of women in the family and in society creates vulnerability. They are the first to be bought and sold, because the man of the house must remain to hold his kingdom together. Women are the weaker sex, thus easier prey. When we twist the Bible into the white colonized version that Vision Forum has done, we create more vulnerable women, men and children. 

Do the Sherwood brothers subscribe dogmatically to VF? I don't know for sure. Does this make Courageous suspect in its message(s)? Well, as believers we are to be wise, calm and open to what others have to say. So yes, I do believe the message of dads getting back on track is a critical theme - dads that serve, dads that love, dads that seek help when required, dads that are examples. However, racism and slave-states were built on covert and subtle messages of incorrect theology many times over. VF is an example of this. 

I, for one, am going in with caution. VF has made its mandate clear. However... a movie is just a movie. If I disagree with Courageous or its message, no one's making me watch it. Furthermore, disagreement can lead to fruitful discussion more than every person in the room experiencing a tearful altar call. It can also lead to pointless divisions, as much as tearful altar calls lead to emotional changes that last but a day.

My larger point here was to uncover some of the "family values" that aren't exactly family values at all, but rather Scripture guised in the American/Canadian dream, the white middle class ideal, and the continuing oppression of colonizers around the world in the name of evangelism. By doing so, Christians continue to contribute to slavery instead of abolishing it. 

But hey... that's just my take.

My Bible Says Slavery Is A-Okay

I've been mulling this discussion over and over again in my head. When I encounter believers who are extremely uncomfortable and even disgusted at the modern faces of slavery (as we all need to be), but become confused as to what the Bible actually says about slavery, some deep and serious questions arise.

Evangelicals assuage the OT's take on slavery by interpreting it as being more of an employer/employee relationship. If we make it look like our modern business world as much as possible, then God for sure would be against all forms of REAL slavery.

The thing here is: that interpretation doesn't hold water. At all. When purchasing a slave (in Bible times and into modern times), the master often purchased the whole family, all of their possessions, and rights to property. The master did not just buy someone's services. They bought the person. In the flesh. Slaves were owned as property just like cattle, graineries, fields and vineyards. While we might find this difficult to swallow ("How could our God EVER allow such a thing?!"), it is important to have an accurate perspective from the outset before placing our perceptions not only of God, but of our cultural world onto things that took place in the past.

So what about slavery in the Bible?

What about slavery that was church sanctioned in past centuries? What theologies justified such action? What ramifications are we living with now?

What about today?

One woman wrote her thoughts in an email agreeing that sexual slavery is most certainly an offense to God at all times, especially against children. However, she found no problem with labor trafficking. If we were to effectively end labour and chattel slavery in our world today, our entire economic and employment systems would collapse. In her mind, there is a time and place to purchase people.

Could just be me, but I feel as if I've heard such claims before...

Anyway... in the coming weeks, I'm going to delve in the Bible and other documents to get a better grasp of why slavery ever existed to begin with, why Christians sanctioned it throughout history (and why some didn't), and... does God sanction slavery? Did He ever?

For some, freedom for captives isn't even remotely a part of the Gospel so these discussions might stop for some before they start. Others find social justice to be a vehicle TO their version of the Gospel. I'll be up front and declare that social justice IS a part of the Gospel as a whole. It cannot be divided from the Good News, nor taken from Christ's heart for the poor and oppressed.

So that's where I'm coming from. Stay tuned. The ride could get interesting.

I Love Lac La Biche

There. I admit it. I love this messy, crazy, colorful, wonderful, conflicted, peaceful, redneck, hippie collision of nowheresvilles, Alberta. Happy?

Yes.

I am.

If anyone knows me well, they know I am prone to long rambles along the highways around LLB. Not exactly the safest route, I've been told, but still... no better view of the town at sunset, in starlight or moonlight, or during the afternoon sun as me on the open highway. Anyone who knows me well will also know that I will do almost whatever it takes to get the best view of... anywhere... anything. To really, truly experience a place -- a sense of being -- you have to go straight to the edge of all things... a look down... look across... look out... look in...

After convincing myself that God really wanted me in "The Inner-City of Somewhere Else", I was relieved to be ditching this place. I was done with.... (insert list here of all things I perceived to be wrong, broken, frustrating, and blocked). But then God happened.

He happens at the most inconvenient of times, I must say.

"Why are you announcing community, intentionally love where you are moving to if you have not learned to truly love the community you are in?"

BAM.

Checkmate.

Running away to the proverbial mission under the guise that I wanted to good (which I did), was only a thin veneer for dodging messy community in all its glory (which I was). In the past couple days, I've taken extremely long rambles about the trucking bypass and began to realize something: I really do love this place. I really have been given a heart for this place. What a shock! In all this beauty, scenic nature, cultural diversity, religious affiliations, here I am. In all the conflicts, family wars, gang junk, racial tension, drug & alcohol abuse, legalism, here I am.

Some have said that, despite this being my 7th year here (has a rather biblical tone, does it not?), I will never be from here. I wasn't born and raised here, thus I will never be able to call this home. Others even more transient than I have been in life marvel that I have stayed as long as I have. Well, in response to both perspectives, I go to John 1... read it just this morning:

 ¹² Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— ¹³ children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Call me crazy (don't worry, a lot of people have, me being one of them), but I am not of this world as the world knows itself to be. I am flesh, created in the image of God, but more than that I am not of this world. So that I am not of good ol' LLB is quite true... yet the roots I put down here are deeper than physical birth. My identity, my birth, my personhood is of another kingdom, a deeper one -- a richer one that is eternal.

I was thinking all of this as Collective Soul sang out into my iPod: "So I walk up on high and I step to the edge to see the world I love. And I laugh at myself as the tears roll down, 'cause it's the world I love.

It's the world I love."

Thinking deeply as I spied the Mosque across from the bypass, as I chatted with some leisurely paced mule deer in a field, as I watched my own shadow grow longer in the afternoon winter sun, as every 18-wheeler passed me, as I passed churches, forests, barns, trailer courts, gas stations, suburbs... everywhere...

Some days I want to pull out my hair over the petty squabbles... other days there is deep sorrow for the injustices we have inflicted upon one another... other days I am awed at the beauty of the cultures who have found their way here, in whatever manner... and still on other days, I sometimes think I would pay a million bucks just for someone to take me to the Sir Francis Winspear Centre for Music in Edmonton so I could get a breath of wondrous classical music because I just can't take another second of another twangy country voice anymore.

(Smiles)

So here I am... Coming Home.

Here's Collective Soul's "The World I Know" - http://youtu.be/n7TLTjqUyog

Relational & Revolutionary, Not Reactionary

It happens to the best of us: our turf gets a little bit encroached upon (the turf we know everything about), and we head into battle mode faster than the US into Iraq. If we do not prove ourselves correct, and the other person incorrect, we have not done our jobs.

Why?

I ask because I see this flaw in my personal design. It gets in the way of my relationships - both current, and ones I wish to make; it takes over common sense; but what's worse, it flies in the face of the self-control Christ is slowly growing in me. Others get hurt, even if I've been the one initially hurt, and God is certainly not glorified.

What's the deal?

Part of it is personality: I have a tendency to see things in black/white terms, right/wrong, up/down, yes/no, or us/them terms. Is there a place for right and wrong, up and down? I believe so. But as I grow more deeply in my walk with Christ, I do not believe a reactionary black/white action is reflective of His character or transformative work in myself or the community around me. 

Ouch. 

But I MUST be right! The world is not in my control if I'm NOT right! It's so embarrassing to be WRONG!

Erin... chill.

Yes, it is certainly a humbling experience to be pointed out as incorrect, or wrong. In fact, it can be humiliating. Yet I believe these are experiences God uses to shape us, and to help us see things from His perspective, as well as the perspective of the other person or group. On the flip side, if we know we're correct, it can be a source of dangerous pride watching the other person squirm in their incorrect state of mind. When we finally prove our correct-ness, we triumph!

Have we?

Are we any closer to knowing the person we just ripped apart?

The fleeting desire to be right suddenly goes down the drain along with the light of life in the eyes of the other person. Double ouch. Our doctrine may have prevailed over the other person's doctrine, but we just injured another's spirit in the process.

Part of the issue, I believe, has been/is the teaching of many conservative church groups (whatever denomination or level of fundamentalism you ascribe yourself to). We are trained -- literally hard-wired -- to make our arguments, especially in the areas of theology, religion, evangelism, and morality. Make no mistake: there is room for healthy debate! That's not what I'm talking about here. Apologetics have been reduced, like much of the Gospel, to trouncing the opposition, because heaven forbid the opposition get more souls than we do. 

Much of this dogma comes from the passage in 1 Peter 3. Verse 15b-17 says: "Always be ready to give an answer when someone asks you about your hope. ¹⁶Give a kind and respectful answer and keep your conscience clear. This way you will make people ashamed for saying bad things about your good conduct as a follower of Christ. ¹⁷You are better off to obey God and suffer for doing right than to suffer for doing wrong." (CEV)

I don't know about you, but I was taught in many-a-Sunday School, sermon, VBS, or Bible Study that this explicity meant having a hardcore, "proven" evangelical answer based on the best of theologians who know their Hebrew and Greek. There was lip service given to giving kind & respectful answers, but more focus on how our answers would bring shame to those sinners. We kindly point out how everyone else is wrong. After all, pointing out sin and the grace of the cross is the best form of love a believer can offer, is it not?

Not.

Yet we are shamed into believing that be unable to give Biblically accurate answers is a sign of weakness in our lives, and the potential damnation of the person across from us rests on our shoulders. After all, that person could die by being hit by a bus right after talking to us.

Talk about pressure.

So with this constant hyper-vigilance, is it any wonder that many of us recovering fundys are discovering that our training was more combative, rather than relational? When we are in a perpetual state of "SHOW THEM WE'RE RIGHT", conversations suddenly become one-way; or they turn into fruitless debates; or they simply show our worst sides for the world to see. Even if we believe we are being kind, the perception is that we're really being quite condescending and self-righteous.

If believers are going to engage the world in ways Christ would (and did), we need to be willing to be transformed from our sword-words aimed at decimating the person before us. Here are a few things I, and a few friends, are commited to learning for the rest of our lives as we seek to know the person with us, rather than prove our correct-ness to them. Trust me, we're all learning at a snail's pace. But perhaps these things need to be learned slowly...:

1) Ask open-ended questions (I noticed you spoke of ---. Could you tell me what you meant by that?... or That was something I wasn't aware of. Could you tell me a bit more about that?... etc.) This will not only show the other person that we deeply care about them, but we will find ourselves opening up to the other person too. Reciprocity is key.

2) Listen. Deeply. And NOT with the intent of prepping our ammo for when it's our turn to talk. This means laying ourselves down entirely, truly desiring to hear the other person out because God loves them perfectly, as we are called to. Listening with ulterior motives, or as a means to share our version of the gospel will be sniffed out quickly, and exposed as the false pretense it is.

3) If comments are in written form, re-read them. Then re-read them again. Ask more open-ended questions. Do our own background research about concepts we might not agree with, but have to admit we don't quite understand or know much about. Again, the research is with the motivation of knowing the person, and not building up ammo to shoot them down.

4) Be wrong. We will be. When we are, admit it. When we are not and accused falsely, accept the accusation with genuine grace, and find other ways to continue the relationship.

5) Decide consciously that there is no massive need to prove ourselves correct, and the other person incorrect. Examine closely our desperate need to be right. Question: "We might be right here, but is there a bigger picture?"... there is ALWAYS more to the story above and below the surface.

6) Exhale. No really... take a breath. Popping out pre-written messages of memorized Scripture, or interpretive conclusions based on those Scriptures does little to build up the other person. Furthermore, it does little to build our own relationships with God. Breathe a little, and allow oxygen to permeate our thoughts, the Spirit to guide our thinking more deeply. Our conversations will be more passionate, more understanding, more reciprocal, and more Christ-like.

7) Examine what we believe and why. Many of the doctrines I was taught from childhood Bible camp through to Bible college are ones I am taking into severe question right now. Are they ALL WRONG? No. I don't believe so, but without deep reflection with God and the willingness to confess "I was wrong", I am preaching an empty and condemning gospel. Remember: there is ALWAYS more to the story.

8) Relational and revolutionary seek the long term, whereas reactionary seeks only the short term. God's kingdom is certainly focused on the here and now, as well as the eternal. They are not mutually exclusive! Seeing only how we can prove ourselves correct moment to moment, especially proof-texting or regurgitating poor theology creates a myopic vision within us. It even makes us sick.

9) Choose deliberately to see each person, and each community as a person/group God created, loves and has already moved in. We are not the be all, end all of God. We don't have that power. When we see people differently, our need to prove ourselves right all of the time dimishes. 

10) It's okay to say: "I don't know."

Christians aren't called to be debaters full of rhetoric. We are called to be ambassadors -- and ambassadors not only know as much as they can about who they represent (Christ), but also the people they are representing to (outsiders, nomads, prodigals, exiles). So this means laying down our intrinsic kneejerk responses, and choosing a calmer, humbler path. Yes, it is as difficult as it sounds and more.

However, in a world that increasingly despises Christians not because of Christ (hey! they LOVE him!), but because of US, we need to take serious stock of how we relate to one another, and to the world. Seeing the long term kingdom efforts, though, it is well worth the difficult journey.

You Lost Me: A Book Review

It's a church's nightmare: discipleship programs, VBS weeks, 'evangelism Sundays', Bible studies, stadium rock, altar calls, all for the Busters and Mosaics... and they're leaving the church.

Correction: we're leaving the church.

Recently, I picked up David Kinnaman's 2007 work unChristian and grappled with why outsiders perceive insiders to be judgmental, hypocritical, antigay, boring, and resentful. While I wrestled with Kinnaman's beginning perspective which, obviously, affected his conclusions regarding his outcomes, I actually discovered that I, as a more liberal believer, agreed with his findings.

Yet his tone, I perceived, still contained that air of hubris endemic to many evangelical voices, including my own, where we "just know" we're right, "how do we make the world see we're right?" in better ways, etc. Still, he also asked some tough, straight forward questions many evangelicals have already asked and have been condemned for it, or have quietly gone to sit in the corner knowing condemnation is not far off.

First off... I highly recommend you read both books back-to-back. Begin with the earlier work (unChristian), and continue to You Lost Me. If you're like me, you will discover something quite profound: Kinnaman's tone has changed. His message has not, and his research methods are sound, but there certainly has been... maturity... openness... depth. While there still are points I disagree with, I found myself actually engaging with the author more in this work than in the first! I found it to be more honest, authentic, and truly a more respectful forum to ask those scary questions.

Let's begin by reviewing some of Kinnaman's definitions, and adding a couple of new ones just so we're all clear about where/how the author is coming from:

Outsiders: those claiming to be looking at the Christian faith from the outside in
Insiders: those claiming to be of the Christian faith looking at it from the inside out 
Busters: those born between 1965-1983
Mosaics: those born between 1984-2002 

Drop Outs:
Nomads: categorical group described as having left the church, but not the Christian faith
Prodigals: categorical group described as having left both the church and the Christian faith
Exiles: categorical group described as having struggles, doubts, & isolation, often wanting to leave the church or the faith, but sensing the need to stay; often feel abandoned by traditional forms of church and seek to express new forms of church

In his research, Kinnaman sets forth some broad characterizations of each group based on his findings. I appreciate his honesty when he firmly posits (often) that he does not always agree with the rationale of nomads, prodigals, or exiles; yet he is equally firm with the church that it take the rationale seriously. Here is a quick summary of the aforementioned characterizations (bear in mind these are broad and dwell on a continuum, rather than stand each alone in a black/white stance; drop outs also tend to be fluid in their own characterizations of themselves, going through phases of their faith journeys).

Nomads (p.64):
~ still describe themselves as Christan
~ involvement in a Christian community = optional
~ importance of faith has faded
~ most are NOT angry/hostile towards Christianity
~ many are spiritual experimentalists

Two questions I wish Kinnaman would have delved into more is: "what do you mean 'The importance of faith has faded' ?"... the faith of the traditional church? Christianity? Faith searching overall?

And...

Kinnmann sounded to me to be a bit ambiguous about what it means to be spiritually experimental. He vaguely referenced Nomads trying out other religious experiences (p.65), but is this to mean Nomads are turning to Buddhism? Or are Nomads trying out Tibetan singing bowls? To me, they are vastly different things and this point needed some clarification.

Prodigals (p.68):
~ varying levels of resentment towards Christianity and Christians
~ disavowed returning to church
~ moved on from Christianity
~ regrets (if any) often centre around parents
~ feel as if they have broken constraints

Kinnaman is quick to point out that Nomads are for more common than Prodigals (p.69). Page 70 finds the author stating that we see a 1:9 chance a young person will become a total prodigal. While there are concerns for both Nomads and Prodigals, Kinnaman rightly establishes a tenor of hope in that most youth are seeking new expressions of church and faith, and are struggling with the institutionalized church. All things considered, this is a good and positive trend in my opinion.

Exiles (p.77):
~ not inclined to be 'separate from the world'
~ are skeptical of institutions, but not wholly disengaged from them
~ sense God moving outside the walls of the church
~ not disillusioned with tradition; but are frustrated with slick, shallow expressions of religion
~ mix of concern/optimism for peers
~ have not found faith to be instructive to their calling or gifts
~ struggle when other Christians question their motives

Here is where I will input my bias: categorically speaking using Kinnaman's terms, I am an exile. It's a struggle when other Christians question my motives as a believer; I am seeing the institutional church not as church, but rather a staunch arena that demands adherence rather than relationship; I am more inclined to find wisdom in the early Church/desert mothers/fathers than I am in the writings of fundamentalism in the past 100 years; I believe God is moving in brothels and bars as much as He is in 'the church'.

What I find interesting is Kinnaman's use of the story of Daniel in the OT. A story often used in conservative churches to show how people should NEVER compromise, Kinnaman uses the narrative to show how Daniel and his three friends actually needed to learn to bend here and there in order to survive and to bear witness to YHWH. Forced to take on new names (of idols, no less), learn new languages, act differently in and out court, what was worth taking a stand on and what required acceptance? Kinnaman compares Babylon to America (and Canada can be included here too, I have no doubt), and the literal exiles of Daniel&Co., with the church exiles of today. We are navigating a technological super age where the institutional church has fallen into disrepute, has not offered valid or viable answers to current issues, has not extended relationships where needed or desired, and has insisted on re-hashing the same forms of the message over and over to a generation that is lost in translation.

So why are the dropouts dropping out? What are the disconnects? Kinnaman goes into 6 broad categories he found in the responses participants gave. I found it interesting that many of the responses dove-tailed the ones found in unChristian. Patterns are emerging, and it is crucial people within and without the institutionalized church pay attention. They are as follows: overprotective, shallow, antiscience, repressive, exclusive, and doubtless.

Overprotective
With the church answering every question, having a program for every niche, and acting like helicopter parents, kids are going to burst. What I appreciated in this chapter is the mention this is especially difficult for creative kids (like me and my siblings) -- stifle us too long and make sure each and every little sin is insulated against, and we die. I can't find a better word for it. Yes, parents need to be discerning (Kinnaman's answer to overprotection), yet I hope my kids have tonnes of gay friends, friends who cut, friends who steal, and friends who question God. I hope my kids are the ones to question God, question me, have solid friends if they ever struggle with cutting or addictions, and are presented with that supportive community church is meant to be.

As a youth leader, I respect parental authority deeply. However it must be said: Parents... get out of the way. Sometimes it is impossible to have a relationship with your kid because you need to be in such massive control of everything. Yet then when things go wrong, the youth leaders aren't doing their 'job'. Sometimes, parents, you need to step aside and support other supportive adults who love your kids deeply.

Shallow
We come in. We sit. We stand. We sing. We pray. The guy speaks. We leave.

That's church?

Don't think so.

Kinnaman (p.122) describes a Bat Mitvah he was invited to, and sees the void many flavours of Christianity have created: we have no rituals.

Rituals? That's legalism! There's no salvation in rituals!

There's that reductionist dogma again, making church a heaven/hell, "repent or perish" issue. If it's not commanded in the Bible, it's not needed! Yet... nomads, prodigals, and exiles alike are seeking cultural, traditional, and new expressions of ritual that expresses a profound faith that the Sunday preacher simply can't encompass on a weekly basis. (oh yeah, legalism can be found everywhere... so if anyone is thinking for a second that our version of church has overcome legalism, think again)

Antiscience
Young people struggle when they cannot reconcile faith and science, or when the church poo-poos science, or science proudly demonstrates humanity's ability to overcome 'god'. I have to admit, if I hear the creation/evolution debate one more time, I might just have to pull out of my hair to get rid of the wood bores burrowing into my brain. Christians still often believe that apologetics are THE WAY to persuade people that we're correct.

Ummmm... no offence, but please be quiet now.

I have been just as guilty as making massive arguments out of useless scientific debate, and I have also been a bystander watching Christians derail those with differing opinions, and being proud of trouncing the opposition. Might there still be a place for healthy debate? Perhaps. Note I said: healthy. Are we healthy right now to be debating? Are Mosaics and Busters really being persuaded through the art of debate?

I don't think so.

All those viral emails of how students prove to their atheist professors that God exists... wow... didn't know chalk, glasses of water, or talk about being unable to see one's brain with our physical eyes 'proved God'. If the church truly has faith in a Creator God, why be afraid of the science He's created? If we have questions about how faith and science can co-exist, why are we afraid to ask them? We're human... we don't have power to debunk God, and science is constantly changing (just like we are) enough that questions are required. Think about it.

Repressive
Did someone say "sex"? Yes. Yes I did. Youth leave the church because of various reasons relating to sexuality. I must hand credit here to Kinnaman. He handled a hot subject with grace, finesse, and challenge. The distinction he made between tradition and traditionalists (p.154) was well spotted. Older generations perhaps are not exemplifying a healthy sexuality any more than individualistic Mosaics are, thinking that sex is "just sex". Neither paradigm is working, nor do they fully explore God's vision of sexuality.

I agree that more transparency is needed (p.162), that we share our struggles with sex, and our questions. For example, when a colleague of mine was called to the ER to help calm a female rape victim, she found a woman in complete disarray. Why? Not initially because of the rape, but rather because the first person the woman had called was her pastor. What did he say: "Well dressed like that, you asked for it!"

Epic fail.

When we talk about doctrines of "purity" and lay it on the shoulders of our kids, we aren't really thinking through what we are asking of them. Celibacy is a calling of God, and for some it is a life long call. Yet we don't communciate that to the Mosaics (or the Busters, I must say). It's just "until you get married". Or we say "Sex is dirty, dirty, dirty! But then when you marry THAT ONE PERSON, it's great!"

Personally, the "sex is dirty" message coupled with "it's beautiful in marriage" confused me. How can a dirty thing make marriage beautiful? But we still communicate this to our kids.

So... if people are waiting longer before getting married, temptation for sex outside of marriage lasts longer. It can be harder to deal with. Our churches aren't set up for this sociological pattern. We still assume our kids will marry in their early twenties.

We rarely talk about persistent thoughts of lust as being "as bad" as premarital sex.

We create the illusion that sex is just fab in relationships. My marrierd friends tell me: "Sometimes, Erin, it ain't that great. In fact, I wish I could just sleep right through it."

Now again, Kinnaman and I butt heads a bit. Refer back to my review on UnChristian and my concerns with his assumption about the LGBTQ lifestyle being all wrong all of the time. The author does not seem to see any difference in orientation v. behaviour, or relationship v. hook ups here. However he appreciates that Mosaics are far more accepting of the LGBTQ lifestyle.

Kinnaman also goes on to posit that perhaps we need to discuss sex from God's perspective and not as traditionalism would (p.64), or as individualists. Sex is about us -- we in community and relationship with one another. When old time preachers screech out on YouTube about masturbation being a sin, it's hard to connect with a young male who maybe had a wet dream the night before, or a young woman who orgasmed during her sleep. Everyone's touched themselves, even in surprise. As one pastor friend told me (and I agree with him): masturbation alone isn't wrong! If it leads to lust/needs lust, porn or violence to occur, THEN we're dealing with something entirely different. As Dr.Tony Campolo once said to us in what I have come to affectionately refer to as The Campolo Method: "In talking about transparency, ask your pastor if he or she masturbates. If s/he cannot answer or won't, it's probably safe to assume other issues won't be allowed out on the table either."

When abuse victims are told they are no longer "pure", or when young people perhaps "go to far" and lose their virginity and are told "that's it. You damaged your goods", I get pissed off (a truly academic term). Do I advocate for loose sex and hooking up? NO! My work in the abolition arena supports that. However, a 14 year old boy who has an erection and "works it", or a girl who lets a boy touch her between her legs are suddenly not impure. Little flaps of skin does not purity make. Yet does the church have open and honest places where we can talk about this stuff?

Speaking from many experiences... no. We don't. Furthermore, we often surpress well meaning pastors who try and address sexual issues forthrightly and in a relational manner.

We are our own worst enemies.

Exclusive
Here again, Kinnaman and I disagree. He sees evangelism as a verbal sharing of one's faith (p.177). I do not. So his assertion that Mosaics not verbally evangelising is of grave concern is not as concerning to me. Evangelism isn't what fundys define it to be... or Catholics... or libs. In fact, our lifestyles often speak more volumes than our words, as expressed in Kinnaman's 2007 study of how oustiders see us. Is it wrong to verbally share? No! But I don't believe we ought to be oppressing ourselves so severely if we haven't shared "The Gospel" with at least 10 people by the end of today.

Query... what IS the Gospel?

For me, there is a holistic and beautiful vision to it. For others, it's about Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. For others, again, it's a "REPENT OR PERISH!" force of coercion. If we aren't told repeatedly about our sins and just how sinful we are from Day 1, we cannot truly know the Grace of God. Eeesh... (personal bias, true, but I am glad I can thoughtfully declare them and not simply accept all of Kinnaman's conclusions at face value).

Mosaics are less likely to desire denominations, and I would count myself among them. I don't have to be an evangelical to go to heaven, as it were. I'd rather hang out with people on their turf and talk God, than show up at a glitzy building where the preacher is the main show.

Doubtless
Often Mosaics and Busters express their frustration that they were never given the chance to share their doubts about the Christian faith. Doubt is seen as rejection of God, or a lack of conviction (p.187). Here is where I found Kinnaman's largest expression of maturity since 2007 to be. Even his subtitle "Shades of Doubt" caused me to smile a little. Doubt not only is inherent to faith, but there are different kinds of doubt that need to be addressed in different ways.

As I read through his definition of institutional doubt (pp.190-191), I immediately sensed an affinty. Accordingly, he said that exiles were more likely to express their doubts here: that being traditional forms of church that suppress life, and oppress exiles in their newer expressions of church (The Simple Way being used as an example here - bravo!). Preaching/teaching have taken over as THE way to expound upon the Bible. Yet... there's so much more.

Personally, doubts are like issues surrounding sex. We simply do not know how to respond. So we react. And we think we're reacting Biblically, but we're reacting in a morally uptight way that destroys the human spirit. We take the easy answers and plaster them over festering wounds... or go so far as to suggest those wounds don't even exist. So why are we doubting? When pastors preach that going to counselors or therapists are silly because they simply tell people what they want to hear, I cringe. Wounded... I needed just such a therapist for a while, and she certainly didn't tell me all of what I wanted to hear. Nor is any pastor immune to that itch to just preach what people want to hear.

What's Old Is New
One of the most profound ideas Kinnaman presents to deal with this incredible disconnect between older generations and Mosaics is to redefine intergenerational relationships (p.202). We have modeled church programs based on an outdated public school system that generates mass converts, unrooted in faith, but insist this is the right and true way. So we separate off: kids with kids, youth with youth, marrieds with marrieds, singles with singles (although I can attest that these groups are usually the church's attempt to create a holy dating scene... really not cool, to be honest), elders with elders.

Instead of digging ourselves into the grave, can we not redefine what it means for older women to mentor the younger? As Kinnaman proposes:

Original assumption: The church exists to prepare the next generation to fulfill God's purposes
New Thinking: The church is a partnership of generations fulfilling God's purposes in their time.

Yes, elders need to be listened to and learned from, but here is where I struggle: it is the elder groups who continue to spit out doctrine after doctrine that makes no sense to me, that is not biblical, that is condescending, and creates divisions. Who am I supposed to look up to? I suppose the elder groups feel very much the same about us younger folk. It's true: how can we have a real talk when you young things always have your heads bent down texting or some such thing.

Noted.

Mosaics are born into technology. We cannot change that. Yet we can influence how they use that technology, and how face-to-face relationships flourish when we put distractions aside. This is a valid and vital point, I believe, for Mosaics. They (and us Busters too) need to put the phones down... log off... power down... unplug. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, none of us can hope to truly mentor one another together when we are always relying on technology to make our friends for us.

Kinnaman ends the book with 50 ways we can consider that might help us reach out to one another better. Again, he precedes the list with the disclaimer that he does not agree with all the views here, but his deliberate inclusion of diverse viewpoints showed me that he is more open than he was even four years ago. He is as intentional about his honesty in disagreeing as he is about inviting diversity -- that spoke volumes to me. And it was much appreciated.

Summary... At Long Last!

I definitely connected with this book far more than I did the first, although unChristian certainly expressed many of my personal feelings and thoughts about the modern church. When all is said and done, many of our issues are communication issues. That might be easy to say when we are dealing with a generation of Mosaics glued to their cell phones, yet that is not quite what I am trying to say.

When someone expresses a different doctrine, a doubt, a question, or something that appears to usurp the status quo in the church, we are largely reactionary. We ask close ended questions (yes/no, right/wrong, black/white), rather than open ended (what I hear you saying... when you use that word, are saying...). We make sure the person knows all of their sins (or at some point confesses all real or perceived sins), understands our statements of faith, declare them ungodly, self-righteous, proud, or some other name intended to hurt rather than to heal. By and large, we do not how to listen deeply. In fact, many of us do not wish to listen at all. We already know what's right, so why bother hearing out all of what this person has to say because we already know our answers?

Dehumanizing.

Sometimes... we don't want answers. We just want YOU.

If we could lay down the guns we have aimed at people, not just in the name of doctrine, but to also keep ourselves protected, we are going to discover a world of hurt in broken people. But we might just be stupefyingly surprised that perhaps that correct answer/doctrine/zinger was not what we needed to give in the first place; but rather we needed the presence of the other person too.

It Is Selfish To Have A Surrogate Baby

Indian surrogate mothers listen to a doctor at 'surrogate mothers' home in Anand, near Ahmedabad. Photograph: Sam Panthaky/AFP/Getty Images

In an age when people are getting married later, are choosing to live alternative or designer lifestyles, and the gap between rich and poor is ever-growing, we must be all the more vigilant as to how our lifestyles can continue to oppress others. Baby-markets are turning children into commodities even before they're born. The impulse to have a child of one's own, especially if it is biologically impossible between partners, is daunting. Yet we cannot allow our impulses to dictate actions that create more buying and selling of people, and rifts between "the haves" and "the have nots". There are children in Canada, the US, and the UK all waiting desparately for homes - many of whom have been shuffled around a good deal already. Instead of creating baby factories and destroying the lives of women and children for our own desires, perhaps we need re-tune our desires to make an impact on the lives children right before our eyes.

I would posit that the desire to have children is certainly not selfish, but the process of "rent-a-womb" certainly is, especially when considering children already needing homes and families. Thoughts? Questions? Reactions?

As Julie Bindel of The Guardian puts it:

The documentary Google Baby, transmitted on Channel 4 earlier this year features a clinic and "surrogacy house" in India, the "rent-a-womb capital of the world". Many of the women having babies for rich westerners have been pimped into surrogacy by their husbands, and are powerless to resist. The women sleep in cramped conditions and are controlled to the point of being told when to eat, drink and sleep. There are serious physical and mental health consequences for both the egg donor and the surrogate, and yet this practice is becoming increasingly normalised.

In India hundreds of brokers benefit from reproductive tourism now worth an estimated half a billion dollars a year. There are 350 clinics offering surrogacy around the country. Prices in India for the full service including eggs, drugs, the surrogate and all medical treatment are significantly lower than in Europe or the US, prompting many individuals and couples from Europe to opt for its services.

For the full article, click here: It Is Selfish to Have a Surrogate Baby

unChristian: A Book Review

So why are Christians thought of as judgmental... hypocritical... antigay... boring? David Kinnaman's 3-year research study through the Barna Group aims to answer some of those questions in his book unChristian. I have read the book, and have some thoughts on his findings. Remember: this is only a brief post trying to cover an entire book on a touchy subject. I will do my best to be concise!

At first I couldn't wait to dive into the book. At last! Someone speaking some reality! Immediately, however, George Barna sets the tone for him in the introduction by deriding written works relying on personal anecdotes (p.8). 

Great.

Another research snob.

If it isn't logically studied through the lens of the scientific method, it is of little worth.

Don't get me wrong! Solid research has its place and is valuable, but not at the expense of other sources of knowledge, insight and wisdom.

Okay... Barna's bias is set, but to be fair this is an attitude of many-a-statistician, Christian or not. Press through it and move on. Kinnaman seems to truly have done a thorough and solid work in his research -- interviews, anecdotes (qualitative); and tools gathering statistics (quantitative). Over a period of 3 years, using population samples crossing ethnic and socioecnomic lines, as well as religious differences, it appears the foundation is well set.

Definitions:

Outsiders: those claiming to be looking at the Christian faith from the outside in (p.17)
Insiders: those claiming to be of the Christian faith looking at it from the inside out 
Busters: those born between 1965-1983
Mosaics: those born between 1984-2002 

I appreciated Kinnaman pointing out that using lanaguage such as "pagan" or "the lost" labels outsiders in such a negative light that these people are immediatley put on the defensive. He refuses to use traditional labels, nor does he "name names" -- Christian leaders, churches or groups who have 'done wrong'. His discretion is well taken.

However, Kinnaman's bias does ring out almost as quickly as Barna's with such as phrases as how we "hijack Jesus" by "softening or re-shaping the Gospel" (pp.32-33). I would agree but Kinnaman is coming at this research as a conservative Christian addressing Christians (p.27). Here, I sighed... Okay, he and I are looking at the same issues from quite different parts of the Christian continuum. For example, when the author repeatedly includes buying a lottery ticket as a form of sin, I disagreed completely. So I had to really scrutinize those actions Kinnaman labelled as sinful, because this would obviously affect his numbers. Bear in mind, numbers are as easily manipulated as words. Furthermore, I disagreed with his definitions of things like discipleship ("learning about Christ, learning about the Bible", p.50), or lifestyle ("doing good and not sinning", p.50). This could be left for a different post entirely, but suffice it to say that discipleship is far deeper than helping someone memorize Scripture, and lifestyle can be far richer than just a moral compass.

So as I read through the pages, I realized I was reading through the lens of an outsider still on the inside. Many of his findings I have found to personally apply to me, and yes... I am one who would really rather not "bring a friend to church". So there's my bias.

Moving on.

Kinnaman focuses on the 6 top areas respondants said evangelical Christians were being destructive towards people to. Now, this is the spot where some evangelicals will say: "But even Jesus said THEY will hate us because of Him!" Rightly, Kinnaman addresses this issue stating "we have become famous for what we oppose rather than what we are for" (p.26). Christians are not being repelled because of our radical love for Christ and others, but because our version of 'love' has been to beat people down with their sin, get converts, demand repentance, and then... leave them. If this is how people are experiencing church, then absolutely attention needs to be paid to what outsiders are saying! They are not hating Jesus... they are hating US!!!

Kinnaman digs into 10 broad areas that repeatedly announced themselves in the results he took from respondants (6 of which he focuses on in the book). He focuses mainly on the 16-29 age group. I was not surprised in the least when the author said the top 3 reasons people leave the church or refuse to become part of one are: 1) we're antigay; 2) we're judgemental, and 3) we're hypocrites. He begins each chapter with how the thousands of respondants perceive Christians, and then proposes a new perception whe could work towards.

Hypocrisy:
Perception: Christians say one thing but live something entirely different.
New Perception: Christians are transparent about their flaws and act first, talk second (p.41).  

Kinnaman claims that as much of a perception as this is, Mosaics and Busters aren't always bothered by hypocrisy because at some level, everyone is a hypocrite, and our generations apparently are okay with living this kind of dissonance. I'm not sure I appreciate his take on all of us being okay with hypocrisy, but I did appreciate his pointing out that Jesus called only the religious leaders of the day "hypocrites!"... guess who's taken on that role today? Us. 

Point taken.

We have such a holier-than-thou attitude, with a few doctrines of grace and love thrown in that we seem like lying snakes (p.51... the snake thing I added). Remember: perceptions are important here. We are not being seen as relational and approachable, but aloof. I know I can't live up to the moral standards set out by this flavour of Christianity. It turns my stomach. Yet... I pause here and look inward to see where hypocrisy is rearing its ugly head in my own life.

Get Saved!
Perception: Christians are insincere and concerned only with converting others
New Perception: Christians cultivate relationships & environments where others can be deeply transformed by God (p.67) 

Ummm... why aren't we creating environments and cultivating relationships where we all are deeply transformed? I was put off immediately by the well-intentioned new perception, but it still had the air of pomposity to it: we create the places, we cultivate the relationships, we are Christians and we draw people in. It is still reductionist dogma, consumer-driven "God is just for ME" individualism. I saw where he was coming from but it fell short. Yes, we do need to create sacred spaces of healing, reconciliation and restoration, but thinking that it is always for 'the other' still perpetuates the us/them myth.

As one astute young man who came into our drop-in centre so aptly put it: "You Christians don't give a shit about me. You just want to convert me so I'll think like you. You don't love me at all. Even if I did convert, you wouldn't love me until I acted like you."

Ouch.

I can't blame the guy. I am sick to the teeth of this "Repent or go to hell!" message that excludes a holistic magnificence in the Gospel. It's wrong. That's my interpretation, I guess. But after living nearly 20 years with the fear of hell gripping my life, driving me to near psychosis, and the love of God so far away, I can say as an evangelical reject (as Kurt Willem's would call me!) that reducing the Gospel to a heaven/hell issue is an afront to all of who Christ is and why He came.

Antihomosexual
Perception: Christians show contempt for gays and lesbians
New Perception: Christians show compassion and love to all people, regardless of their lifestyle (p.91) 

Now I know with a limited amount of space, Kinnaman couldn't address ALL aspects of his research in depth, but the attiude of "We all KNOW it's wrong, but we're going about expressing it the wrong way" attitude was another put off. Again, it seemed like a veiled attempt for another evangelical stance to come at "the problem" in a nicer way. Was there any discussion as to whether or not Scripture has been misinterpreted? Was there any intentional attempt to dialogue with the LGBTQ community to learn new perspectives? It was hard to swallow the "hate the sin, love the sinner" merry-go-round when it still sounded so arrogant. What about gays who have been "born again" (as Kinnaman describes it) and still struggle? What about Christians who discover they are gay? What about gays who have been abused by the church?

However I did appreciate that Kinnaman pointed out the complexity of the LGBTQ community, its experience with the evangelical church, and vice versa. It is not a black/white issue. So while I perceived the author's attempt to elevate the conversation to fall somewhat short, it was not entirely without merit. For a great resource about conversations and really elevating the conversation between gays and Christians, check out Andrew Marin's, my friend and former classmate, book Love is an Orientation. You won't find black/white, yes/no answers. But you will find some of your questions posed there, and how others have addressed things. The Marin Foundation is doing some great working building bridges between churches and the LGBTQ community where others have certainly feared or disdained to tread.

Sheltered
Perception: Christians are boring, unintelligent, old-fashioned, and out of touch with reality
New Perception: Christians are engaged, informed, and offer sophisticated responses to the issues people face (p. 121) 

What greater evil force is there than hate? Rejection. When Christians deign not to associate with outsiders, we are perceived as snobby, arrogant, fearful, in our own little worlds, too good for others, etc., etc. We've all heard it before. Kinnaman (shown left) makes a distinction that there are times when we pull back from the world (for example, not letting a child watch innappropriate videos), yet our isolationism in the name of not being of this world has hampered our rep. 

Yup.

Bring out the torches and pitchforks, because I cringe when believers yank their kids out of every activity where perceived demonism or sin might be lurking. Sin is everywhere. It certainly won't hesitate to be in your home (if we're going to go that route). Hiding is cowardice. Conforming is also a risk, but Jesus took that risk & faced conformity by acting radically amongst the untouchable classes. 

Too Political
Perception: Christians are primarily motivated by a political agenda and promote right-wing politics
New Perception: Christians are characterized by respecting people, thinking biblically, & finding solutions to complex issues (p.153) 

The Moral Majority... The Tea Party... Canada's conservative Right... traditional family values... anyone else feel like fingernails are being scraped over a blackboard? 

The author points out that conservatives are trying very hard to create a Christian government. I would agree, but add that we did that already -- with disastrous consequences. We had power centuries ago and still do today whether we like to admit it or not, made policies that created genocides, slavery, poverty, disease and death. This isn't Jesus Christ. Why would we want that back? Are we that power hungry?

Should Christians back out of politics altogether? The author says "no" since the Christian influence needs to extend into every area of life. But advocating for things like making gay sex illegal is dangerous. Christians might be successful in gaining that policy (scary!), but they will effectively destroy any hope of creating relationships with gays and lesbians (and what is with our fixation on homosexuality anyway!?). Not only that, but policy will logically have to extend to YOUR bedroom as well. Do YOU want the government dictating your sex life? Thought not.

Judgmental
Perception: Christians are prideful and quick to find fault in others
New Perception: Christians show grace by finding the good in others and seeing their potential to be Christ followers (p.181) 

This one struck me hard. Not only because I've felt deeply judged and wronged, but because I know I've been judgmental too... towards conservative Christians especially of late. It's wrong and I know it. It's one thing to disagree on issues, but to truly dislike conservative ideology and let that trickle into the Body of Christ... well... let's just say a friend of mine and I have committed to each other that our jaded spirits do need healing FROM church, but we also need reconciliation WITH church. A sincere transformation of Love is in order... and wanted. It is so easy to slide into judgmentalism. As a wise professor once told me: "Hurt people hurt people." 

That being said, some days I think If I hear that the social gospel is not the "real" gospel one more time, I'll ---!!!!!!! Remember, I'm looking at this issue being an outsider on the inside. When I am told that my faith is not real, it is not sharing the Gospel to enough people, that my 'conversion experience' was a false conversion, when it is not a real gospel, or that I'm preaching communism or nazi socialism, feelings do get hurt. I get jaded. I feel alone. 

And I'm not the only one.

I was waiting for the abortion shoe to be dropped, and here it is. Kinnaman describes an interview he conducted with a young woman named "Lisa" (p.162). An outsider, she attended an "insiders" women's group on and off. One day, the group was talking about sexuality, intimacy and those sorts of issues women do tend to wander off on at times. She joined in the conversation by sharing how she was empathizing with her outsider friend who had had an abortion. The conversation immediately changed in tone: it went from sharing with one another, to insider women preaching and condemning Lisa. It wasn't until Lisa had the chance to explain herself that she, herself, had once had an abortion and how badly it wounded her, no one really quite knew where to go from there.

Silence.

I can only imagine the pins dropping all over the place in that church.

Once again, I disagree with Kinnaman's broad sweep that Mosaics and Busters are morally relativistic and content be so. Newsflash: EVERYONE is morally relative (as my brother would say). Yet, the plain truth of the matter is that insiders' words and actions have done deep damage to outsiders. These outsiders are not "pagans" or "lost", but by and large people who have encountered church and Christianity already! But because of bad behaviour, and wounding judgments, they/we never go back. We give up. I mean, who wants to be speared week after week? Not me.

Kinnaman is correct in stating stereotypes must go if judgmentalism is to be demolished (p.191). They do kill relationships. Christians don't have all the correct lenses through which we see the world. Far from it. Just look at how entangled we are in insisting that our countries (US and Canada) are Christian nations, whose forefathers founded our great empires on godly principles, thus our definition of freedom, capitalism, and democracy are THE correct and godly ways to live. Where does it say THAT in Scripture?

From unChristian to Christian

The author sums up his book with ways insiders can change perceptions - resolve the image problem. It's true there will always be nay-sayers, doubters, and spiteful critics. However, it's also true that insiders can live better than how we are. 

~ respond with the right perspective
~ connect with people
~ be creative (evangelicals aren't known for their creativity or passion for the arts as expressions of worship, despite their being evangelical artists... we certainly can do much better here)
~ serve people (social justice IS a part of a whole Gospel! To denounce otherwise is to denounce major reasons why Christ came)
~ a lifestyle of compassion (pp.205-215)

Okay... a brief summary after a lengthy blog: I did not agree with many Kinnaman's definitions of sin, spiritual disciplines or what it means to be evangelical. I did not like his rather proud sounding tone at times which bordered on hubris. I certainly felt disappointed when he truly grappled with a complex issue but then fell short of actually shedding light on solutions that could come from places other than traditional dogma. His guest authors who contribute to his work spanned the spectrum from John Stott to Brian McLaren. I am still unsure as to whether this was a deep intention to include diverse voices from across Christianity, or just a tip of the hat to show conservatives were playing ball (and don't think the minority of women's voices went unnoticed).

However...

I remember how Paulo Friere insisted that true change of an oppressed people could only come from within. I believe the same to be true here. Conservative Christianity, in my mind, has become not oppressed but an oppressor group. Known for its disrespect of persons, dehumanizing methods (calling it 'love' so people are fully aware of their sin), ignorance, isolationism, and poor judgments, deep and true change can only come from within the group. David Kinnaman appears to be just such a voice. I could blather on and on until I'm blue in the face as to why telling unwed mothers they are not "God's true vision for the family" is abhorrent, but until people like the author stand up and share these realities between themselves, we all will stil be known as unChristian.

Next up... "You Lost Me"

 

For The Slave is Our Brother...

How do we end slavery in our own communities? We create family... we welcome those in chains... we see the chains we wield or carry ourselves and surrender them to Jesus... we seek active peace, confess the reality of divisions between us denominationally, racially, socio-economically, and work vigorously to reconcile them... we lament injustice, praise when it is called for, & see all life as sacred worship... we play, laugh, and choose a rooted love in a hypermobile culture... we become new creatures unlike any created thing ever seen, & declare in word & silence the Spirit's transformation all of our lives.