Christian Piatt Blog

Talking trash and faith’s call to action

By CHRISTIAN PIATT
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

More often than not these days, faith communities recognize that environmental issues must be taken on by them, and not relegated to the government to solve.

Commercials such as the one featuring the Revs. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson speaking together about global warming indicate that care for our world is a growing concern across the social spectrum.

There are a number of issues with which faith communities can assist and have a significant impact – right here in Pueblo, Colorado.

Perhaps the most obvious local concern is water, and we’ve seen some religious leaders step up and speak out, particularly for marginalized communities such as Pueblo’s East Side, which suffer the most when Fountain Creek swells with sewage from our neighbors to the north.

Another looming issue is global warming, and how we as a nation will address it. As reported recently, Congress is debating a series of bills to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions dramatically over the next 40 years. While the overall concept is hopeful, there are some potential disparities that we must anticipate, particularly as a less affluent, “working class” community. The so-called “cap-and-trade” system seeks some sort of middle ground, allowing cleaner industries to sell pollution credits to heavier polluters such as coal-fired energy plants and cement manufacturers. Though the net effect for the nation is positive, there’s a real potential for a tremendous imbalance, to the detriment of poorer communities.

Given the fact that companies generally locate higher-polluting industries in more depressed economic areas, this means that those towns who host such industries likely will see little improvement in their local environment, given the fact that it’s more cost-effective to buy pollution credits than to retrofit old factories with cleaner systems.

Another potential positive of the bills is that they include credits that can be used to invest in “green” technology research, using some funds from the cap-and-trade system to pour money back into smarter, cleaner energy. The drawback for poorer communities is that, in general, technology-oriented investment benefits communities with workers who have advanced degrees, which usually are more affluent to begin with.

So while communities such as ours get more pollution, the bigger, richer cities get more money for more jobs. If we as faith community leaders are in truth advocates for the disenfranchised, then this is a concern that we cannot let our legislators and other public leaders leave unaddressed.

Finally, the way we deal with our trash in Pueblo is, to be blunt, embarrassing. There’s a strange fixation in Pueblo I’ve never seen in any other community regarding people’s near-obsession with not being told what to do with their trash. Meanwhile, as we’ve seen with the closure of a local dump, those who fail to take responsibility for their own waste cause piles of refuse to grow in prairies and along roadsides.

There are those vigilant souls within the city and county governments who have fought for years to have a community recycling program, but there other “garbage civil libertarians” who believe it’s more important to allow people to haul their own trash than to honbor our responsibility to reduce our environmental impact.

The issue is this: Most recycling industries require a certain guaranteed volume of recyclables to be available in order to justify the expense of establishing and running a plant. This might mean that a mandate requiring everyone to use a trash-hauling service would have to be enacted in order to lure a recycling business to Pueblo. There are, however, a select few in the city who seem to resist this concept to the bitter end.

If the concern is economic, certainly some of the tax revenues from a recycling plant could be converted into subsidies for poorer residents to cover the cost of trash services. If, however, the conflict is over matters of tradition and personal preference, then that’s just careless selfishness.

One of the greatest assets Pueblo has is a relatively clean environment and a high overall quality of life. If we want it to stay that way, we may have to fight for it.

Parenthood and planning don’t always cooperate

By CHRISTIAN PIATT
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

My wife, Amy, and I found out a few weeks ago that we’re going to have another baby. We’re excited, but already, plans have begun to change.

We had a previous vacation planned to Pagosa Springs before we learned she was expecting. Our favorite things to do in Pagosa are to relax in the hot springs for hours every day, take some naps, have a couple of drinks on the porch at sunset, go out to eat and maybe hit the springs again before bedtime.

The thing is, if you know anything about women in their first trimester, Amy was not up for eating out. The term “morning sickness” is misleading, since the nausea and vomiting aren’t restricted to an exclusively pre-noon activity. She’s also not had a drink since she found out she was pregnant, which is good for the baby, but throws off our vacation routine a bit. Strikes one and two.

I figured at least we could put in some extra hang time at the springs, but the baby messed that up too. You’re not supposed to let your body temperature go above 100 degrees or so while pregnant, so we were relegated to the couple of lukewarm kiddie tubs instead of doing the ones we usually frequent.

Thanks a lot, baby. While we made our way through a re-invented vacation, our son, Mattias, was having some quality time down on his Grandma Suzie’s farm in New Mexico. It’s heaven on Earth, especially for a little boy, but there are plenty of opportunities for mischief.

According to Mattias and his cousin, Miko, Mattias just walked by and said “hello” to one of the farm dogs, and the next thing you know, the dog had him pinned down and was gnawing at his face. By this time, of course, his cries of shock and panic had gotten everyone’s attention and they came running.

By the time they pulled the dog off, Mattias was bleeding from several places on his chest and head. After cleaning him up and calming him down, the injuries weren’t as serious as they could have been, but he did end up with a trip to the doctor, where he got his ear stitched and received a tetanus shot.

“I don’t like that dog one bit,” pouted Mattias. “Send him to Australia.” We had told Mattias that Australia was about as far away as you could get and still be on the planet, so he decided this was a good plan for his canine assailant.

The rest of the Pagosa trip was a delicate balance between trying to enjoy ourselves and not feeling too much like terrible parents for not being there for Mattias. Even during our time of retreat, and even with him being in the most capable care we could imagine, our hearts and minds were somewhere else.

If parenthood teaches you anything, it’s that life isn’t about you any more. We all carry that little child around inside ourselves still – you know, the one that still hollers “Hey, what about me?” when your kid gets the biggest piece of cake, or your vacation plans change, or any countless number of other things that make you realize you’re not really as important and special as you’d like to be.

First and foremost, from now until death, you are a parent. You’re a caretaker, provider, nurturer, teacher, guide, occasional inspirer and reluctant judge. More than fulfilling the dreams for your own world, you lay yourself down for the dreams of others that will come after you, and perhaps for the first time, you begin to think about what the world will be like after you’re no longer a part of it.

There’s something suddenly more important than life itself, though ironically, it is life itself, just not as you pictured it. You feel the pain of others more than you sense your own pain, and all you wish for is to take it on so they don’t have to bear it. There’s more than a small amount of insanity in signing on to parenthood. The pay is terrible too, but the benefits are something else.

Just what is a ‘Red Letter Christian?’

By CHRISTIAN PIATT

There are fairly divided feelings over the phrase “evangelical Christian” these days. The term evokes all kinds of images, and for many who do not identify themselves as evangelical Christians, most of those associations are negative:

Slick snake-oil salesmen disguised as preachers, soliciting peoples’ money on TV.

Angry tirades issued from bullhorns on street corners about the sinful state of the world.

Hypocritical attitudes toward others, suggestive that somehow the rest of the world simply doesn’t get it.

An almost fetishist obsession with sexual mores, particularly homosexuality. Thankfully, these are broad stereotypes that do not describe all evangelicals. The greatest detriments to the movement itself tend to be, however, that so many of the biggest evangelical figures tend either to make more enemies than friends (see Bob Jones) or they get caught up in scintillating scandal, very similar to the things they’ve preached against (see Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, et al.).

There are those within Christianity who have tired of the hard-line, angry, judgmental labels attached to the term “evangelical,” and they’ve resolved to reclaim it. The so-called Red Letter Christians are identified as such mainly because they focus less on arguing about the many interpretations people have of scripture on hundreds of do’s and don’ts, and instead focus on the messages that Jesus offers directly in scripture.

If you’re not familiar, there are some Bibles that highlight all quotes from Jesus in red, thus the name “Red Letter Christians.” Their philosophy, at the risk of oversimplifying, basically comes down to one straightforward mandate: If Jesus said to do it, then go do it.

This movement was begun by activists such as author, preacher and humanitarian Tony Campolo, and celebrated by the likes of Jim Wallis, progressive Christian media icon and editor of Sojourners magazine. The point is that Jesus was pretty direct about our responsibility to others, and he mentions care for the poor and marginalized, so we have work to do. Regarding hot-button issues like homosexuality, Jesus says nothing in scripture about it, so it’s deemed that our energy as Christians should be put into something more important than condemning others.

And they’re doing this in the name of evangelical Christianity.

I should say here that I agree with 95 percent of what the Red Letter Christian movement stands for. However, I do have a couple of bones to pick with them.

First of all, the idea that Red Letter Christians are somehow avoiding the cumbersome, divisive process of the various meanings that arise when interpreting scripture is bogus. By selecting parts of the Bible to emphasize at all, regardless of your reasoning, you are interpreting. You’re saying that these parts are more important than other parts.

Also, any time you read scripture, you’re interpreting it: It’s unavoidable. Also, I’m of the opinion that scripture itself is an interpretation of what went down at the time. I know, I’m making no friends with literalists with this one, but I think if God had wanted us to have an infallible, perfect understanding of things, it would have been downloaded directly into our brains, and not written, rewritten, paraphrased and handed down through oral tradition over hundreds of years. Talk about a setup for interpretation!

Second, the Red Letter Christians try to get off the hook somewhat by making homosexuality a non-issue. In fact, if they truly believe in their mandate to stand up for the oppressed, then gays and lesbians should be high on the list of those for whom they advocate.

Having said all this, I’m excited about the prospects of this young movement. In fact, I’m confident that, if combined with the emergent movement born from the evangelical side, the Red Letter Christians may just be the fresh, compelling voice for justice and activism we’ve needed for so long.

I haven’t shared much about my writing projects outside of the columns lately, but quite a bit has gone down lately, so I thought I’d catch everyone up.

Probably the biggest news has to do with Chalice Press, the publisher of my first two books. I presented a proposal to them for a book of spoken word poetry, combined with a CD of authors reading, back before my book on LOST even got approved. They liked the idea, but said they didn’t know how to market it, especially coming from a first-time author.

Well, after doing two books with them I thought it might be time to pitch it again. This time I partnered with another author of theirs, Brandon Gilvin, who has experience with spoken word, and he agreed to co-edit with me, bringing in contributors from all over. The result was “An Improvised Faith: Modern Psalm in Spoken Word.” We promoted the concept as something that might even fit within a series of young adult books, which they had been considering anyway.

The good news is, the proposal was approved, and “An Improvised Faith” will finally be published. Though a date has not been set, expect something around Spring, 2009. The even better news is that they asked me and Brandon to be series editors for an entire young adult series they are going to publish. We’re starting with 5-6 titles that will come out over the next couple of years, and we’ll see how those sell and go from there. So basically, I’ll get to help guide the overall vision of the series, pick authors/editors for each volume and probably contrbute to some along the way.

If you have not yet heard my spoken word stuff, check it out on my other MySpace Home Page.

In other news, I’ve been asked to be a consulting editor for a new translation of the Bible the Methodist Church is putting out, probably in 2010. I’ve been asked to help edit the book of Job, which ain’t my favorite book, but I’m sure not going to say no.

Also, it’s a little out of date now, but I contributed a week’s worth of Meditations to the Chalice Press Lenten meditaitons book this year. If you bought one and never cracked it, go back and check it out.

Next, I’ve been doing some more writing for WorshipConnection, a website associated with Cokesbury, Abingdon and some other Methodist publishing groups, and they’ve given me three feature column spaces so far. My next one comes out July 4th, and another in August. It reaches about 150,000 or so per issue, which is cool, and if you’d like to sign up for their free e-newsletter, follow the link above.

Finally, I’m not giving up on the mainstram book work. my novel, Blood Doctrine, is still being shopped my my agent, and we’re waiting to hear hopefully good news from a mass market publisher that’s shown some interest. I’ve also begun writing a memoir about a series of events in my life which I’m not quite ready to divulge in the Blogosphere just yet, but which has been getting good buzz from folks who have read what I have so far.

On top of all that, I’m still doing my weekly Pueblo Chieftain columns, which you can read here, and my column for Disciples World magazine every other month.

Thanks so much to everyone who continues to offer their support, prayers, time and attention to my work. It’s my hope that at least some of the ideas have sparked a thought or two for others, and as long as I keep having ideas and people keep letting me put them out there, you can count on hearing more from me.

Peace,
Christian

The power of ‘we’ in the face of violence

By CHRISTIAN PIATT
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

I had a conversation recently with a number of folks about the role of violence in our culture. Often, the first images that come to mind when the word “violence” is uttered are movies, video games and images we see on the evening news. But there are a number of contexts within which violence can be considered, and in many cases, the acceptability of violence depends on the situation.

Most of us can agree that violence exacted by gangs, or through acts of genocide, are reprehensible, period. But then there’s the matter of government-sanctioned violence, such as the upholding of the death penalty, or the sanctioning of war. Regardless of your feelings about the righteousness of these and other violent acts, they are just that.

In many cases, the justification of violence has to do with responding to some other perceived wrongdoing, generally violent in nature as well. In the case of the death penalty, there is some irony that our societal response to someone committing violence on others is to do the same to them. But there is a perceived moral righteousness when it’s argued that government-commissioned acts of violence lead to a result that is worth the cost: even a human life.

Unfortunately, in the case of war, the price is much higher than a single life. In Iraq, more than 3,000 Americans have died, along with more than 10 times that number of Iraqis. Families across the world are irreversibly damaged, and even among those who survive, the physical and psychological scars of war will live with them forever.

How do we ever justify such behavior against God’s creation? In some way, the benefits must be argued to outweigh the costs, or else it’s just complete madness. And like most things in life, we can find support in scripture for war, capital punishment and other acts of atrocity. I believe, however, that Jesus pushes us toward something else.

CNN recently published a story about Iphigenia Mukantabana, a Tutsi master weaver living in Rwanda, whose entire family was slaughtered by Hutu rebels. “Women and girls were raped and I saw it all,” she said in the article. “The men and boys were beaten and then slaughtered. They told others to dig a hole, get in, then they piled earth on top of them, while they were still alive.”

If anyone would have justification for a call for justice, it’s this woman. In addition to her own family members, nearly a million of her fellow Tutsis have been exterminated. Because the court systems have become too overwhelmed to process all of the criminals, tribal councils have been allowed to handle so-called “lower level” killers.

Before these councils, perpetrators are given the opportunity to make a public confession and to ask for forgiveness. The council determines what punishment is necessary, but the goal of the tribal leaders is to affect community healing as much as possible. There’s less of an emphasis on individuals getting what they deserve, and more of a focus on the overall wholeness and well-being of the group.

It seems that this collective consciousness has led to what some might consider more merciful solutions to these matters. In the case of Mukantabana, she has found the love and support from the council and her community necessary to offer forgiveness to her family’s killer. Today, in fact, they dine together and have a bond of friendship that many of us would struggle to understand.

Also important is the role that Mukantabana’s faith as a Christian plays in her decision to show mercy and forgiveness. “I pray a lot,” she says, noting also the importance that the entire community bore witness both to her suffering, and to the contrition offered by the killer.

In grieving together, the entire community shares her pain. In turn, they also share in the healing process. Nothing is too big, too violent or too unjust that it cannot be responded to with faithful, compassionate unity.

Christ died while embracing such peace in the face of violence. It seems to me that, instead of worrying so much about what was right and just, he saw his own unfailing vulnerability and love as the ultimate Christian act. So if we are indeed transformed by our Christian faith, how does this challenge our notion of violence when faced with it firsthand?

How the female breast was replaced by the cross

Imagine walking into a Christian sanctuary and, instead of a cross or crucifix hanging before the altar or over the baptistery, you find a painting of Mary, breast exposed, nursing the baby Jesus.

Seem hard to imagine? For about fourteen hundred years following Jesus’ life, this was more common than most people might realize. Though today, it’s hard to imagine viewing a naked female breast in a place of worship as being appropriate, but this hang-up we have about the human form is a relatively new invention.

So what happened?

A fascinating article in a recent Christian Century magazine addresses this question, and the answers may challenge many of our preconceptions about the symbols we so fervently embrace today.

For more than eleven hundred years, the employment of a cross to represent God’s love and grace for humanity was much more of a controversial subject than it is today. Because the symbol was so closely associated with violence and criminal activity, many believed it did not evoke the sort of sense of worshipfulness the church sought to impart to its faithful.

It was not until St. Anselm and his peers in the twelfth century began to emphasize the notion that Jesus’ death specifically was the focal point of God’s redemptive acts that the cross took on greater significance in the church. Before this, the death of Jesus, in and of itself, was not singled out as any more important to human salvation than the entirety of Christ’s life, including birth, death, resurrection and everything in between.

With this new emphasis, Paul’s scriptures in the New Testament took on new importance, represented symbolically by the cross. However, for several hundred years following, the cross did not supplant images of the nursing virgin, but rather coexisted alongside them.

In fact, during the medieval period when so many suffered from disease and malnutrition, the image of Mary nursing represented God’s provision and sustenance, which so many longed for. Even such notable theologians as Clement, Anselm, St. Augustine and others depicted “Christian nourishment as coming from God’s breasts,” according to this article.

Wow.

A couple of things took place to change our perception of the propriety of the female breast as an image of worship into an object of lust and shame that should be concealed. First, the invention of the printing press made available to the masses all sorts of new information. And much like we’ve seen with the employment of the internet to purvey pornography, wherever the dissemination of information is democratized, you’ll find smut.

Whereas, before this, sexualized images of women were the exclusive privilege of the social elite, the fascination with sexual imagery exploded. Suddenly, we were aware of our nakedness, so to speak, and what once was adored now seemed dirty.

Second, science progressed to the point that human autopsies became increasingly common. As we began to learn in greater detail about the machinations of our own guts, some of the mystery held about the human body began to fall away. Instead of the whole incarnation of our selves being a holy thing, the body became merely housing for the soul: a piece of meat instead of an inscrutable sanctuary.

In an age where the mysteries of life are explained more and more often by science, and as explicit sexual imagery imposes itself in even more corners of our daily lives, I can’t help but think about the direct relationship all of this has to our perceived shame about bringing our whole selves to worship. Why, after all, would God have any interest in a part of me that others may perceive as fuel for lust? Perhaps it in everyone’s best interest if I leave that part of me at the church doors.
 
Better yet, let’s go a step further and not only eradicate any images of exposed human flesh from our houses of worship, but let’s also make sure that any talk of sexuality or embodied spirituality is considered taboo in the presence of God.

Considering the current trends in how our young people treat their bodies, and how the oppression of human sexuality has only driven it underground, and in some ways, made it all the more fascinating, I’d say that this puritanical exercise of ours has been nothing less than a disaster.  

I am excited to say that, after four years for waiting, many emails and an online petition, construction is officially underway on our first ever Chipotle restaurant in Pueblo. I was surfing the web for Chipotle-related info and found htis cool nurtional calculator application. since Chipotle’s not exactly forthcoming about the calorie, fat and sodium content of your favorite burrito.

Hey, if you want to pig out in ignorance, go for it. It is, after all, the most awesome food on the planet, even if it was made out of dead puppies and razor blades. As for me, I’m putting my favorite combo out there for the world to see, sneer at and judge.  You’re not gonna stop me from eating there anyway, so why not?

But a couple of little duh-worthy pointers:
*The tortillas are insanely high in calories – hovering around 350 calories each
*Sour cream and cheese are, have been, and always will be fattening.

With that in mind, test your mettle and see what kind of damage I’m doing with my favorite ‘rito, and then, if you dare, click on the link below to figure out your own, then report back to see how you compare.

Click Here to view