kim through
   the looking glass

Can we please be daring enough and creative enough to change this five-hundred-year-old ritual - which incidentally doesn’t have a shred of biblical warrant to justify it? Can we accept the challenge to equip God’s people to function under the headship of Christ without human control? And if we don’t know how to do this, can we please be humble enough to bring in someone who can and see what happens? (Reimagining Church, p. 266)

What a fantastic book! While Pagan Christianity exposes the non-scriptural nature of most of our church practices, Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity discusses what church would look like without them - and challenges its readers to act on their new knowledge. Author Frank Viola walks the reader through reimagining the following:

• the church as an organism
• the church meeting
• the Lord’s Supper
• where church is held
• the family of God
• church unity
• leadership
• oversight
• decision-making
• “spiritual covering”
• authority and submission
• denominations
• apostolic tradition

This book packs a big punch and led me, for one, to see what church could look like done in the tradition of the apostles and the first century Christians - truly a Christianity of which I would be unashamed to be a member, and Christianity for which my soul cries out!

The biggest things that stood out to me is that being a passive spectator to a once-weekly ritual is waaaaaay easier than being in real relationship with other Christians. Consider the following quote:

“There’s a price to pay in responding to the Lord’s will for His church … You’ll bear the marks of the cross and die a thousand deaths in the process of being built together with other believers in a close-knit community. You’ll have to endure the messiness that’s part and parcel of relational Christianity - forever abandoning the artificial neatness afforded by the organized church. You’ll no longer share the comforts of being a passive spectator. Instead, you’ll learn the self-emptying lessons of becoming a responsible, serving member of a functioning body … And you’ll incite the severest assaults of the Adversary in his attempt to snuff out that which represents a living testimony of Jesus.” (Reimagining Church, p. 278)

Interestingly, while my intellect shudders at that description, my spirit jumps with joy - or perhaps it is His Spirit within me? Either way, I’m excited - excited that perhaps I’m not crazy. That I’m not alone in feeling that if Jesus were here on Earth today, He wouldn’t exactly be thrilled with the way we “do church”.

I’m not sure where to go from here. I’ve signed up to a forum for organic churches and have been invited to a conference event to hook up people looking for organic church. I don’t think that there are any organic churches in our area - not that I’ve been able to find. So what do we do? Wait for someone else to plant a church? Pursue planting one ourselves? Do we even know enough people passionate about this type of Christian living to make this a reality?

Questions, questions. I’m hoping to purchase Finding Organic Church. It is apparently a very good book - discussing finding, planting, and sustaining organic churches.

I was lucky enough to piggy-back on an order that Brad put in for some programming books a few weeks ago. He ordered me The Birth of Hathor (which took me completely by surprise!), Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves, Pagan Christianity, and Reimagining Church. I quickly dug into Pagan Christianity and would like to offer a short review here. Read the rest of this entry »

I was recommended the book Diaper Free: The Gentle Wisdom of Natural Infant Hygiene (Ingrid Bauer) by a number of parents on an email list in which I participate. At first the idea of Natural Infant Hygiene (NIH), or Elimincation Communication (EC) as it is often called, totally grossed me out - after all, aren’t babies and diapers part and parcel?

I figured it couldn’t hurt to read the book and maybe it would give me some interesting things to try with Gwen, so I picked it up from my library and dove into it. People, I love this book!

The idea behind NIH is that babies are born with the ability to consciously relax their bodies and urinate or defecate just like an older child or adult, but that we train them to use a diaper instead. From pages 98-99:

“Elimination Communication begins with the baby’s awareness of subtle sensations, which indicate the filling of the bladder. The baby may then signal the parent, or the parent may anticipate the need through timing or intuition. The parent holds the child over a receptacle and make a familiar sound. The child then voluntarily relaxes and releases the urine before the bladder has become uncomfortably full. Over time, as muscles strengthen and conscious control increases, the baby is able to retain and hold in larger quantities of urine for longer periods of time if necessary. This occurs gradually with no particular focus or effort as a natural and inevitable consequence. About the time the sphincter muscles fully develop, the diaper-free baby achieves consistent continence.”

Bauer then goes on to contrast this with conventional potty training, in which a child has learned to pee in its diaper only when the bladder is very full and it cannot hold any more urine. When we then ask that child to begin using a toilet or potty to urinate in, he or she must contract the sphincter muscles and make it to the potty or toilet to release the urine. These kids just literally don’t sense the subtler signals that their bladder is sending to their brain in order to pee voluntarily before the bladder is full until much later than the toilet learning has begun.

I think one of the most interesting things I learned in this book is about the differences between the Western world’s concept of ‘toilet readiness’ - that a child cannot possibly toilet train before at least 18 months because they don’t have the ability - and the Eastern world’s belief that children are quite able to communicate effectively about their elimination needs. I enjoyed this quote a whole lot - from pages 70-71:

“One of the most glaring problems with the concept of toilet training readiness is its heavy ethnocentric focus. The “readiness” theory can only even begin to be considered viable if one pretends that the vast majority of the non-Western world does not exist … Millions of mothers around the globe know that babies are “ready” and aware from birth. The empirical evidence is overwhelming and stretches back for eons. Why has the experience of the majority of the world’s mothers and babies been ignored for so long? Are only modern North American and European babies subject to this maturational lag?”

The book then describes the suspicious timing of the release of scientific literature to promote the ‘toilet readiness’ theory by Dr. Brazelton during the year the first disposable diapers - Pampers - were released. Not to mention that Dr. Brazelton happened to sit for a time on the Pampers Parenting Institute Pediatric Roundtable. Coincidence? I happen to think not!

The book is filled with stories and instructions as to how best support your child’s elimination - whether you start at birth, after a few months, or start later with a toddler. I’m planning to start pretty early with Love Bug - we’ll see how it goes!

Here are some other resources for learning about NIH:

• borntopotty.com
• diaperfreebaby.org
• tribalbaby.org - Learn about Elimination Communication
• Free to EC! My Journey to Elimination Communication

Wow. Can I say wow?

The Continuum Concept, by Jean Liedloff, is in my opinion, largely a social commentary. The writer spent a great deal of time living with and observing Native South Americans in their tribal communities and contrasts their methods of child-raising to our very different North American methods.

Basically, Liedloff postulates that these tribal humans live much closer to the natural human state (the ‘continuum’) than we “civilized” humans - a postulation with which I’m sure none of us would disagree. However, she also asserts that as such, their children (and adults!) are happier, more well adjusted, and enjoy a higher quality of life than do their Western counterparts. She stresses that we have come to rely so much on our intellect and so little on our inborn instincts that we miss out on much of the truly human experience. Read the rest of this entry »

I received a comment in my comments (lol, obviously, Kim!) from my sister, Jenny, who wrote quite the response. I was going to respond in the comments, but the response grew and grew, so I decided to just turn it into a post. Jenny, I welcome anything more you have to say, as your response got me thinking! Anybody else have any discussion points? Below is my response.

Hey! Thanks for the response. Why would I be offended, sis? I enjoy a scholarly debate like the rest of them! And regardless, I’m glad you felt like you could engage me =)

I’m gonna cop out and respond paragraph by paragraph, because I don’t think that I could write a comprehensible response another way!!

i read the .pdf chapter of his book & while his ideals are impressive, it makes me wonder why he thinks that his form of Christianity is the only “version” (in 2000 years) that promotes selflessness in the form of community oriented sharing?

I’m not entirely sure from where you got this idea - that is certainly not what I got from this chapter! The chapter (downloadable from his website, linked in the original post below) is the chapter “Another Way of Doing Life”. He’s quick to say that they have “been very careful at the Simple Way never to claim that we [they] have the corner on the market for ‘radical Christianity.’ Nor have we [they] ever tried to spread a brand or model.” (Claiborne, p. 137). What I understood from this chapter was that he and his community are attempting to go back to the early Christian days. Of course there have been other “Acts” Christians in the last 2000 years, but if you’re honest with yourself, how many Christians do you know living in community? How many do you know invite the poor into their homes? Having grown up in the church and having continued to go throughout my teen years and early adult years, I can tell you that there are too few Christians who live out of a true desire to love the poor and marginalized.

further his point about not agreeing that some people can’t speak for themselves made me feel like he doesn’t understand “status” outside of his community. for example, women in Muslim countries really don’t have a voice - or if they find the courage to use it they are often killed or tortured; just like victims of abuse in western society often find their voice silenced by bureaucracy, where the abusers have more rights than the victims do - this is where the strong HAVE to stand up for the weak and why is that so wrong? wasn’t Jesus the voice for millions of his followers, just like Moses before him?

Again, Claiborne doesn’t say that they don’t stand up for the “voiceless”. The point he was making (if I may be so bold as to share my interpretation) was that it saddens him that people are seen as “voiceless” - he believes that they do have a voice, whether society hears them or not. You said it yourself - “silenced by bureaucracy” - the word “silenced” means that there is noise being made, right? Claiborne is not saying that there aren’t people who aren’t heard - he’s merely saying that he is not a voice for the voiceless - that it was not his intent to become that. Of course there is a place for the strong to stand up for the weak - what I read from his words is that we wouldn’t have to stand up for them if we would take our hands off our ears and just listen! And regarding Jesus being the voice for millions of his followers, He wasn’t - heck, Jesus didn’t even *have* millions of followers! Moses was a voice for the Jews to Pharaoh, but that was God’s purpose for him. Moses was a man. Jesus is God, and therefore is the voice of God. People came to Him to hear Him speak about the Kingdom of Heaven and about how they should live - He didn’t speak for them, He spoke to them.

“Our way of life was typical in the days of the early Jesus movement.” because they had no other way of life! thats what gets me. does the pope live in a gold house? yes. is that right? no, i don’t think so. but it is what it is. evolution happened along with the birth of society but it doesn’t mean that caring (emotionally or financially) for yourself or those you love is wrong. whatever happened to hospitality of the heart?

Actually, I’m going to disagree with you here. They *did* have another way of life! Yes, people lived more communally than we do now (heck, up until 50 or 75 years ago, we all lived more communally than now), but they still lived very individualized lives. There was more of an emphasis on family, yes, but people didn’t live and freely share resources with those outside of their families. Until Jesus came, and in the book of Acts (chapter 2, verse 44 - 45): “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.” This was *not* normal in their time, and neither is it normal in ours. That doesn’t mean that caring for yourself or those you love is wrong, I agree. However, I do believe that it is my responsibility (as a person trying to follow Jesus) to care and provide for those who cannot care and provide for themselves. Hospitality of the heart is fine, but if someone’s starving to death, it won’t fill their belly. Hospitality of the heart only goes halfway - if that - if I’ve got extra food in my cupboard and 1 in 5 (in Hamilton) are hungry.

“Many of us who find ourselves living differently from the dominant culture end up needing to “despectacularize” things a little so that the simple way is made as accessible as possible to other ordinary radicals.” how can he not see that what he’s written about in this chapter, all over his website, through his online presence, is the very thing he’s speaking out against? he is “spectacularizing” a culture of “living downward” & probably making a tidy profit from it! by alienating himself from main stream society, by asking people to give up their possessions and follow his “new way” of living Christianity, he is doing the very thing he’s speaking out against.

First off, Claiborne is NOT asking people to “give up their possessions and follow his ‘new way’ of Christianity”. NOT AT ALL! He’s asking people to re-read their Bibles, where time and time again, Jesus invites people to give up their possessions/sell their things/leave everything and follow HIM! Claiborne is merely sharing how *he* has lived out this call - and I might add, is quick to say - if not in that particular chapter, than at least in the rest of the book - that he doesn’t think that his kind of life is for everyone. He is hardly “alienating himself from mainstream society”, he is choosing not to live in it - and this decision is hardly something he thought up himself. In John 15:19, Jesus says “you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” Jesus doesn’t want Christians to live in the same manner as non-Christians - what then, would be the point? re: “making a tidy profit” - Since only Chapter 5 was available, I’ll share that in the foreward to the book, Claiborne states that all of the profits from the book are being given away. In appendix 1, all of the organizations to which he is giving the profits are listed.

after all, Jesus didn’t ever ask for followers did he? they followed him because they loved him and wanted to be close to him, not because he asked them to “think outside the box”

Actually, Jesus *did* ask for followers! In Matthew 4 alone, Jesus calls Peter, Andrew, James, and John to be His disciples. Throughout the Gospels, He calls people to Him to follow Him. Some, like the disciples, do. Others, like the rich young man (Matthew 18) do not follow Him. The whole time through, Jesus is continually saying to people, “Come and follow me.” And regarding “thinking outside the box”? That’s all Jesus did! All four Gospels are full of parables whose sole purpos
e was to make the Jews think about what they were doing. Every sermon Jesus gave turned what they thought they knew on it’s head. Like the parable of the mustard seed - the Jews were used to the Kingdom of God being compared to a huge tree - Jesus compared it to a weed - not a very big seed, but one that quickly grows into a spreading bush which takes over everything. That, for the Jews, was being forced to think outside the box!

i think its sad that he truly believes all rich people hoard their stuff; that he thinks that being wealthy = being lonely. that he really believes wealthy countries have the most depression, suicide and loneliness; his conclusions are taken out of context. if he compared the “mass” of people he’d see that these numbers are higher in wealthy countries simply because we have more people. if you compare the depressed populace of Port Dover with the depressed populace of Toronto, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out which city winds up on top - Toronto, because of its sheer volume! but that doesn’t give us any concrete conclusions & it certainly doesn’t give him the right to stereotype one sect of the population (much like he’s hoping no one will stereotype him)

I haven’t read the study he is referring to in this section, so I can’t really comment on how accurate either his or your opinions are in this matter. There are many studies, however, that discuss wealthy vs. non-wealthy and charitable giving. Non-wealthy individuals consistently out-give than wealthy - proportionally. For example, “While individuals with higher levels of household income gave more in absolute amounts, those donors with the lowest levels gave a greater percentage of their income than others,” (Statistics Canada, p.11 - Highlights from the 2004 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating)

There are lots of things he says that i truly do believe? Example: “Why would I want a fancy car when I can ride a bike, or a TV when I can play outside with sidewalkchalk?” there really is “enough to go around” if we all gave some of what we had.

don’t get me wrong, i’m all for grass roots movements, community oriented culture, freedom of expression, religion, life & love, but reading his writing was painful b/c, while it raises some excellent questions, i didn’t find it gave me usable answers. maybe thats why it got to me. i know he’s not here to provide answers, but if you’re not even going to try to make sense of what you’re trying to say, why bother saying it?

Well, one needs to consider whether or not the purpose of Claiborne’s book was to answer the big questions. I don’t believe that’s his purpose - in the foreward he states that the purpose of the book is to “speak the truth in love” and to tell a part of his story as being involved with the Simple Way. And, as one often does in literary discussion, one needs to consider the audience. It is my belief that he is writing to those who are fed up with “health, wealth, and happiness” Christianity and therefore perhaps it didn’t give *you* usable answers, but I know that it sure did point me in the direction of some excellent scriptural points that I’ve glossed over before. After all, as Christians, we believe that God’s Word has all the answers in it - Claiborne’s book served, for me, only as a springboard from which to further study the Bible to discover how Jesus wants His people to live. And, of course, I believe that he did try to make sense of everything he said - but it took the whole book to do it =)

i really don’t know whether i should be posting this. i hope you don’t get mad.

I’m really glad that you did post it, and I’m not at all mad! I love you, Big Sis, and I hope that we can continue to have good debates!!

I recently read “The Irresistible Revolution” by Shane Claiborne. Wow.

Shane asks some big questions about life and brings into question the way that modern-day Christians live. It resonated with me in such a big way - I’ve always felt discomforted by the “health, wealth, and happiness” promises of modern Christianity when the Bible contradicts this kind of teaching. This book made me think long and hard about the way I live and whether or not I’m really following Jesus. And, sad as it is to say, if I’m truthful with myself, I do a pretty crappy job.

In this book, I was taken by the hand and led out of my comfort zone, joining Shane as he traveled across the world to find a real Christian. His search took him from the ghettos of Philadelphia to Calcutta with Mother Theresa, from Baghdad during the US bombings to multi-million dollar megachurches.

Shane plunges “deeper into what the earliest Christians called ‘The Way’ - the way of Jesus, the way of the kingdom [of God], and the way of the cross. He is the first to admit that what he and his spiritual cohorts are doing seems quite radical, even crazy, and maybe insane. But he also has come to question the sanity of the consumer culture, the distorted priorities of the global economy, and the methodology of the warfare state, while, at the same time, rediscovering the biblical reversal of our social logic - that the foolishness of God has always seemed a little nuts to the world.” — Jim Wallis, foreward

How do Shane and his friends live that seems so crazy? Reckless love. Reckless generosity. Shane and some friends have established ‘the simple way‘, an intentional community in the heart of Philadelphia’s poorest community in order to live out their beliefs. Shane is adamant that, if we are to truly reflect Jesus’ character we must (gasp!) live as He did. And, thankfully, Jesus’ life can be summed up in one word. Unfortunately, that one little word is the most difficult thing to consistently live: LOVE. And, in order to love, one must create relationships - which doesn’t seem too hard, unless you really think about it.

In our culture of individuality, true Christianity screams “community”. And in our world of individuality, community isn’t always the most welcome thing to scream. But we are called to live in community - especially with those who are poor and needy.

So what does this mean for me? It means maybe not moving to the nicest part of town to buy a house with a white picket fence and instead choosing to be “downwardly mobile”. Maybe it means volunteering downtown at a shelter or with underprivileged kids. And maybe, just maybe, it means getting together with some like-minded folk and creating our own intentional community where we can share resources and open our homes and lives to the people who need us so we can show them Jesus.

(Schlosser, 2002, p.197)

I just finished reading ‘Fast Food Nation’ by Eric Schlosser. I am pretty sure that I will never eat at a fast food establishment again, and if I do, I sure as heck won’t enjoy it. And that’s a strong statement coming from me, who was fine eating at McDonald’s after she worked there. After reading the book, I’m not concerned about the restaurants themselves - as I said, I worked in one, their cleanliness doesn’t bother me - and neither does what goes on your burger.

It’s what goes on behind the scenes.

It’s the industry that advertises to our children - hoping to create brand loyalty by as early as age 2. The industry that pairs with governments and school systems to advertise to our children in their schools and promote a high-fat, high-sugar diet.

It’s the entire fast-food industry that relies on transient, minimum wage workers to work at its counters and in its kitchens. The industry that strives to keep their workers part-time so that they needn’t pay benefits. That exploits teens and fires workers who are involved in union-organizing activities.

It’s the industry that puts chemicals in our food to make them taste. The industry that, without changing the look or (un)nutrition of its food, could make it taste just as easily of fresh-cut grass as it does like a french fry or a hamburger. The industry in which it costs 1/2 of a penny to flavour a can of coke for which we pay at least $1.00 (+ tax).

It’s the industry that has led progressively to the ‘agribusiness’ world in which we live. The world where the independent potato farmer and rancher can no longer support his family on the land that has been inherited down through the generations. The average poultry-house owner who gives up after only 3 years, having invested hundreds of thousands.

It’s the industry that drives into Mexico to recruit men and women to work at its meat packing plants and slaughterhouses, then pays them less than minimum wage and doesn’t give them health benefits - and yet asks them to work long shifts in cramped spaces, wielding large knives and cutting up raw cow halves. The corporations that seek out the states that have no workers compensation or workplace safety boards. The companies that ask their cleaning staff to spray scalding hot water and bleach throughout the plant at night - without proper safety equipment or supervision. The industry that gave Kenny Dobbins two herniated discs, two chlorine-burned lungs, a shattered ankle, and a heart attack. They also gave him a pink-slip while he recovered. “They used me to the point where I had no body parts left to give,” he is quoted as saying (Schlosser, 2002).

It’s the industry that has killed thousands of children because of poorly regulated health standards with its meat and its high levels of E. coli O157:H7 - one of the most potentially lethal and virulent pathogens known to man. It killed one boy, Alex, in roughly 5 days - after eating one hamburger. And how does E. coli get into the meat? Fecal contamination. Hence the title of the post. And it’s hard to kill - there are no antibiotics which are effective against it.

What are Schlosser’s recommendations after all this disturbing information?

1. Ask our governments to ban the advertising of unhealthy foods to children under 8 - this would help discourage bad eating habits and encourage fast food chains to change their kids meals (reducing carbs and fats).

2. Lobby to fast food restaurants about the nutrition in their food, where they get it from, and what you would like them to do about it - since the fast food chains are the largest purchasers of beef, they have the ability to change what happens in slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants. If they demand that the standards change, the plants must change or go out of business.

3. Ask our governments to protect the independent farmers and ranchers - ask them to open up the meat market and make it more competitive.

4. Most of all, use your consumer power (which is quite considerable if we all work together) to make meaningful change. Schlosser explains below:

“Pull open the glass door, feel the rush of cool air, walk inside, get in line, and look around you, look at the kids working in the kitchen, at the customers in their seats, at the ads for the latest toys, study the backlit colour photographs above the counter, think about where it is the food came from, about how and where it was made, about what is set in motion by every single fast food purchase, the ripple effect near and far, think about it. Then place your order. Or turn and walk out the door.” (p.270)

This book gets five stars from me. I would highly recommend it to anyone. It’s graphic and disturbing at times, and it makes you think. It makes you think about what you’re eating and what you’re supporting when you do so. As I said, I’ll never enjoy fast food again.

Schlosser, E. (2002). Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.