preventing the holocaust: three things that went wrong

Are you like me? Do you have the same perennially nagging questions about WWII: How could the holocaust have been allowed to happen? And how can we prevent it from happening again? If so, read on. I've found a few answers this summer.

However, before I share this list I offer a disclaimer: I am not an expert in WWII. I have not engaged in academic research on these matters. I am, like most of you, simply curious, with a long-standing uneasiness regarding this part of human history. Even now similar narratives are playing out in other parts of the world. Will we look back in 60 years and wonder how we could have stood idly by while whole people groups are slaughtered?

1. Insidious Propaganda

The first reason I encountered for the holocaust (or Shoah) is explored in John Boyne's young adult novel, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. In my opinion, the movie is even more achingly powerful than the book. You simply must watch it.

Although this is a work of historical fiction, it goes a long way toward answering my questions about the German populace during WWII. In this story, even the Commandant's family, living next door to a concentration camp, are unaware of its inhumane conditions. They don't realize the acrid smoke comes from burning bodies and that their own father is responsible for the daily murder of countless humans. They are shown videos that depict happy Jews, well-fed and grateful for a place to live. For the average German, it was less psychologically taxing to believe the propaganda than to push for answers, especially when those who did so risked personal harm.

2. Incredulity

I encountered another reason for the widespread devastation of the holocaust in Elie Wiesel's Night. This one gave me chills. Wiesel describes how a member of their Jewish community in Poland had been deported to a prison camp, escaped, and returned to warn the community. But nobody believed him. The horrors he described were so unthinkable that the other Jews decided he must have gone crazy. They had plenty of time to escape before they were rounded up, but they stayed put, confident that the war would soon be won and the Nazis would go home to Germany.

Ironically, I finished Wiesel's autobiography of the war years on the very day he died, old and full of years. What a gift he gave us all with his unflinching description of Nazi brutality. What a wonder he survived it! Self-deception can run very, very deep and animate the most egregious behavior imaginable. Let us not forget it.

3. Insufficient Sympathy

The final, nauseating insight is from Chaim Potok, author of My Name is Asher Lev and also of The Chosen, a fantastic novel about Jews in Brooklyn in the 1950's. He explains, "There had been public meetings in England, protests, petitions, letters—the whole machinery of democratic expression had been set in motion to impress upon the British Government the need for action [during WWII]—and not a thing was done. Everyone was sympathetic, but no one was sympathetic enough. The British let some few Jews in, and then closed their doors. America hadn't cared enough, either. No one had cared enough. The world closed its doors, and six million Jews were slaughtered. What a world! What an insane world!" (197, emphasis added)

If Potok is correct, immigration policy played a role in the mass devastation. Jews who had nowhere to go were left vulnerable to Nazi occupation, deportation, and death in a concentration camp.

Closer to home . . .

Are we believing lies about the true status of refugees?
     These are moms and dads with children who are desperate for a safe place to call home, not dangerous criminals.

Are we believing the truth when it is told? Or do we dismiss the stories as highly unlikely?
     Entire villages are being destroyed. Women are being sold as sex slaves to ISIS militants. Entire museums and ancient monuments are being blown to smithereens.

Are we sympathetic enough to do something about it?

"If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them." (James 4:17 NIV)

The solutions are complex because the problems are complex, but let's not turn and look away. These are our brothers and sisters.

a granddaughter of immigrants speaks up



In 1949, my Oma and Opa were among the first European immigrants to fly to the Americas after WWII. They left behind a country ravaged by war, where the land had been raped and pillaged by years of fear and poverty. They determined to put as many miles as possible between themselves and the memory of war. They were not well educated. They were not highly skilled workers. They were young farmers, newly married, who hated farming and wanted to begin a new life. They were not "white"; they were Dutch, and their only ticket to Canada was (ironically) through the sponsorship of a Canadian farmer who gave them work. The little English they spoke was hampered by a thick brogue. They brought little wealth to contribute to the economy. Just two pair of calloused hands and a willingness to try again to build a better life for themselves and the son they would bear.

They looked no different than Germans. I wonder whether their accents ever aroused suspicion among their new neighbors. They had been victims of war brutality, risking life and limb to subvert the German advance, but only a thin border separated them from Nazi headquarters. With the same light skin and big noses, did people wonder? Did all Europeans look the same? After all, they shared a religion with Nazi Germany — Protestant Christianity.

How soon we forget.

My father crossed the Canadian border into the United States to attend Calvin College. He met and married my mother in Grand Rapids, Michigan, beginning life as a U.S. Citizen.

That makes me the granddaughter of immigrants — immigrants who fled a war-torn country to make a new beginning. They followed their married son to Colorado so they could watch me grow up. I was nurtured and raised in a close-knit Denver community whose shared origins defined us (even today, the children of my Dutch cousins and Dutch classmates are dropping off their children at Calvin Camp, the same camp we attended almost 30 years ago, and my other grandparents are living out the remainder of their years in a retirement home populated mostly by people of Dutch descent). My community successfully integrated. No one my age that I know of actually spoke Dutch. We were Americans.

But roll back the clock just a few generations and most of our families were not in the United States.

How grateful I am that my grandparents were allowed to move here — that they were not turned back at the border on the outside chance that they were Nazi sympathizers.

I'd like to extend that opportunity to others fleeing war-torn lands.
Every human being deserves a place to live and raise a family without fear for their safety.
Let's work together to make it happen.
There's a sea of refugees out there who are just as afraid of ISIS as we are.
We can start by opening our hearts to them.

Ta-Nehisi Coates: On Being Black in America

Between the World and Me is sweeping across America. When both Time magazine and Christianity Today urged me to read it, I figured I should listen! Coates frames his incisive prose as an extended letter to his teenage son on growing up black in America. Though much has changed since his own childhood, still the black body seems fragile -- dispensable to those who think they are white. 

Coates is a gifted writer, and his vision is clear. 

He writes, "And I saw that what divided me from the world was not anything intrinsic to us [as blacks] but the actual injury done by people intent on naming us [i.e., whites], intent on believing that what they have named us matters more than anything we could ever actually do. In America, the injury is not in being born with darker skin, with fuller lips, with a broader nose, but in everything that happens after." (120)

He describes the effect of Black History month, and the emphasis on non-violent resistance as model black behavior — a behavior that to him ensures that white power continues unabated. The only authorized black heroes are the meek: "All those old photographs from the 1960s, all those films I beheld of black people prostrate before clubs and dogs, were not simply shameful, indeed were not shameful at all—they were just true. We are captured, brother, surrounded by the majoritarian bandits of America. And this has happened here, in our only home, and the terrible truth is that we cannot will ourselves to an escape on our own. Perhaps that was, is, the hope of the movement: to awaken the Dreamers, to rouse them to the facts of what their need to be white, to talk like they are white, to think that they are white, which is to think that they are beyond the design flaws of humanity, has done to the world." (146, emphasis added)

He leaves readers with this call to action: "And still I urge you to struggle. Struggle for the memory of your ancestors. Struggle for wisdom. . . . Struggle for your grandmother and grandfather, for your name. But do not struggle for the Dreamers. Hope for them. Pray for them, if you are so moved. But do not pin your struggle on their conversion. The Dreamers will have to learn to struggle themselves, to understand that the field for their Dream, the stage where they have painted themselves white, is the deathbed of us all." (151, emphasis added)

Perhaps you think this is overstated. That we really are white, and that whiteness matters. 

I'll admit that until I read Coates' book, it had never occurred to me that I was anything but white. Now I find it strange that I didn't see before what a misleading term it is, a label that has drawn a line between us and them and has ushered me into privilege while others wait outside. I'm ready to move on. Ready to go full color.

Let's be clear. Humanity matters. Every one of us, no matter our skin color, our country of origin, or our religion. And as long as this doesn't translate into equitable treatment, then we must raise our voices and work for a better world.

so you think you're white

What does that mean exactly?

If you're referring to the color of your skin, let's be honest — "white" is not the most accurate descriptor. White stands at one extreme of the color spectrum, and black at the other. Yet every human being I know falls somewhere in the middle — a rainbow of rich hues: peach and olive and tan and brown, which my set of 24 colored pencils cannot adequately represent. By labeling ourselves "black and white," we polarize, forcing everyone to one side or the other.

White is not a skin color (even for albinos).
White is not an ethnicity.
It's a way of organizing society, and it's so pervasive that it has changed what we think we are seeing.
A month ago this had not yet occurred to me.
But I'm over being white.

If it matters to you, I'm an American of Dutch descent. What little skin pigment I have has gathered itself into a thousand freckles on my arms and legs and face, defying categorization.
Above all, I'm human. Made as the image of God.
And so are my brothers and sisters across the pigment spectrum.
Every one of them is his image.

Language matters.
When we assign a label to something we place it in relation to other things.
We say what it is not.
In these challenging times, where emotions run high, let's choose our words carefully.
A word aptly spoken can open up new avenues for dialogue or it can dig trenches and build walls.

From now on, I'm human.

an open letter to people who think they're white

Dear "White" America,

(That includes me.)

We have two options.

Option 1:

Go ahead, tell yourself you can be silent because "all lives matter."
Keep imagining that this is a fictional problem, created by the media to divide our country and boost ratings.
Excuse yourself from the conversation because Black Lives Matter is not inherently "gospel centered."
Assume that this is someone else's problem because you have no black neighbors and no black friends.

Option 2:

Resolve to understand what others call injustice.
Determine to listen to their cries so you can be part of the solution in some small way.
Decide that you are not content to carry on without friends of other colors.
Develop empathy by trying on other shoes.

Above all, look deeply into your own soul and be brutally honest — racism starts with me. It starts when I cross the street to avoid close proximity with someone who is not part of my "tribe." It starts when I value the lives lost in Paris more than the lives lost in South Sudan or Syria or New Orleans. It starts when I assume that someone has nothing to offer me that I need, simply because our skin tones don't match.

It's time to wake up.
It's time to listen to the urgent cries of our brothers and sisters.
It's time to recognize that there is no such thing as "white." White is no more an ethnicity than yellow or red or blue. "Caucasian" is no more scientifically defensible than "Aryan." Both terms (now abandoned by anthropologists) served Hitler's eugenics project nicely to separate "us" from "them," while a simple DNA test would reveal our common humanity. We are cousins, each created as God's image.

American history should make all of us wary of our own rationalizations and good intentions. Abolishing slavery, as important as that was, did little to rectify the disparaging attitudes toward those of African descent. When those in power decide that the exploitation of another human being is essential to the smooth operation of our economy, that certain people are better suited to menial labor and that they aren't worth educating, then it will take generations to undo the damage. Generations. The damage is still not undone.

When we consistently define people as either "white," "black," "Asian," "Muslim," or "Mexican," we betray our cultural blindness. When we perpetuate stereotypes rather than cultivate sensitivity, we compound the problem. When we speak of immigration as "infiltration" and refugees as dangerous, we foster the very fear that creates the hostile environment in which extremism takes root among the isolated and victimized. Let me say it plainly. Our extremism fosters theirs.

Can we move beyond this?
Let's not turn our backs now, when we're needed most, and assume there's nothing we can do about it.
We can all do something.
We can start by caring.

By reading this far, you've shown that you're open to option 2.
May I suggest a next step?

Read Ta-Nehisi Coates' Between the World and Me. I suspect it is the Uncle Tom's Cabin of our generation — the book that will awaken all of us who think we're white (he calls us "the Dreamers") to the plight of blacks in America. He didn't write it for us. He wrote it for his son. But if we want to be part of the solution, we need to listen in, too.

I'm no expert on dissolving racial tension or resolving the immigration crisis, but from my vantage point both are heart issues that can no longer be ignored.

Sincerely,
A Fellow "White" American

friends of many colors

Anthropologists and missiologists sometimes use the term "Third-Culture Kid" (TCK) to describe those growing up in a culture that is not home to either of their parents. As a result they end up feeling like they don't fully belong in either culture, but are comfortable interacting with others from around the globe. I have often wondered if this label applies to my own children.

Though we've been missionaries for 13 years, all but 2-1/2 of these were spent in the U.S. Eliana was a wee thing when we lived and traveled overseas. But she has changed zip codes innumerable times. (Ok, that's an exaggeration, but she is attending her 9th school this year and living at her 10th address!) She's experienced living on the East Coast (South), in the Midwest, and in the Northwest, as well as the Philippines. And even when her feet are firmly planted on American soil, she has a magnetic attraction to other cultures.

How magnetic, you ask? Here's a list of the nationalities of some of her closest friends at each age of her life:

Age 2-3 - British, Filipino, Korean, American
4-5 - African-American
6 - Cuban and Japanese
7 - Indian
8-9 - Ethiopian, American
10 - Indonesian
11 - Filipino, African-American, Guatemalan
12 - Mexican-American, Filipino, Dominican
13 - Korean, American
14 - French, Brazilian

What is responsible for Eliana's multi-culturalism? Why is she more comfortable with nationalities other than her own? Why is her favorite class this year AP Human Geography?

Is it my own fascination with other cultures?
I'll never forget the day in 4th grade when Ana came home and told me she had made a new friend. She was apologetic because her new friend was white (!). That's when I realized that I had probably been too overt about my own quest for cross-cultural relationships.

Is it all the books we've read from around the world?
Many of those books are featured on my 'Best Kids Books' list to the right of this post. It started Eliana on a reading journey that continues today.

Was it living in the Philippines at a formative age?
This might have had the opposite effect. Eliana associated Tagalog with being pinched or otherwise harassed in the market. She refused to speak Tagalog, even when she understood it, and began to hate going shopping with me so I left her at home. On the other hand, "Nanay" was a beloved member of our family while we lived in the Philippines, and Eliana spent many happy hours with her. She also loved attending preschool with friends of many colors.

Or is it part of God's call on Eliana's life? Part of how he's wired her? Time will tell!

For now, I am thoroughly enjoying the journey.

does the new NIV distort the Scriptures? - part 7

In a time where questions of gender, identity, and sexual orientation are at the forefront of public policy and public discourse, it's understandable that gendered language would be a sore spot for Evangelicals. In this last post of the series, I'd like to share the two reasons why I applaud the NIV translation committee for their decision about gender inclusive language. Both are a matter of mission.

(1) One principle that guided the CBT (for the NIV) in their revisions is the international nature of the English language. It is no longer adequate to consider only patterns of English language usage here in the United States when deciding what best communicates the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek. People all over the world are speaking English and will be using our best-selling translation. Therefore it is imperative that we consider international patterns of English use when translating the Word of God. Some of the changes in the new NIV were made in this spirit.  

While the average American over the age of 40 might be comfortable with masculine pronouns in gender neutral situations, this is not the case worldwide, as people’s first languages exhibit a variety of grammatical norms. We dare not put stumbling blocks in the way of those around the world who are encountering Christianity for the first time. If a passage is directed to everybody, not just men, then it is increasingly important that we make that clear in our translation using gender neutral pronouns.

(2) The second factor to consider is (for me) closer to home. I am raising three children in a country where it has become bad taste to use masculine pronouns to address mixed groups. In most academic institutions, Wheaton College included, the use of masculine pronouns in written assignments to refer to humankind or a person in general is actually against school policy. People are certainly entitled to their own opinions about whether this is a good thing. Every generation brings changes to the English language that grammatical sticklers will not appreciate. But the point is that this is the reality in which we live. Our children are being educated in a context where they are not hearing masculine pronouns used generically. As a result, it does not sound natural to them—instead the Bible sounds archaic or misleading. Do we want to persist in using Bible translations that are confusing to them? We are losing young people in droves because they perceive that the church is out of touch. This is one simple adjustment we can make for the sake of mission.

If I thought that the Committee on Bible Translation had sold the farm, I would not embrace the new NIV. If I thought that they had capitulated to a liberal agenda, I would not encourage individuals and churches to "upgrade" their pew Bibles. That is not the case here.

Several years ago Wheaton College created a policy on gender inclusive language. It reads,

"For academic discourse, spoken and written, the faculty expects students to use gender inclusive language for human beings."

School administrators go on to explain the missional motivation for this policy:

"The college seeks to equip students for service in the world for Christ. Students need to be ready to communicate in that world. We want our students to succeed in graduate school, in the corporate world, and in public communication, all settings in which gender inclusive language for human beings is expected and where the inability to use such language may well be harmful to the Christian witness."

For me that's the bottom line. A good English translation of the Bible must be based on solid biblical scholarship and able to communicate that biblical truth effectively to the wider culture. In my opinion, the new NIV fits the bill.

does the new NIV distort the Scriptures? - part 6

Are you with me so far? I've attempted to answer a number of objections to the new edition of the NIV by explaining why scholars felt the translation needed updating. I've given some examples of how these principles have worked out in practice. I hope that it has been helpful.

Now we have come to the real rub: pronouns. In reality most of the other concerns raised about the NIV would apply equally to the 1984 version as to the 2011 version. The greatest controversy with the new NIV has revolved around gender-inclusive language. The outcry is actually a holdover from the Committee on Bible Translation's 2005 release, known as "Today's New International Version," which met with so much opposition it was pulled from the shelves. For the new NIV, the committee thoroughly reevaluated every verse affected by questions of gendered language, taking a more moderate approach.

I need to make one thing clear from the get-go: the NIV has not changed pronouns referring to God. As the Committee on Bible Translation explains,

"Nowhere in the updated NIV (nor in the TNIV, nor in any of the committee discussions leading up to either version) is there even the remotest hint of any inclusive language for God. The revisions solely surround inclusive language for mankind." (from "Updating the New International Version of the Bible: Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation," page 4, emphasis theirs)

However, in many places they have changed pronouns (and even nouns) that refer to people. "Forefathers" has usually been replaced by "ancestors." "Brothers and sisters" often appears where the text used to read only "brothers." The committee based their decision to do this on twin considerations:

1. Concern for Accuracy. The translators wanted to be sure that when the original languages were intended to refer to anyone, regardless of gender, that sense was clearly conveyed in English.
2. Concern for Communication. The committee asked Collins Dictionaries to undertake an extensive, independent study of recent publications (including sermons) in English in order to track patterns of language use over a 20-year span. They wanted to ensure that the finished translation would clearly communicate using current English idiom to avoid misunderstanding.

Here’s a simple example:

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16:24; KJV).

Is Jesus speaking only to men? Is following Jesus something that only men are qualified to do by virtue of their gender? The KJV gives this impression to those who are not accustomed to generic use of masculine pronouns. As a result it miscommunicates the meaning of Scripture. The Greek does not use the word “man.” It simply has a generic pronoun (τις) that happens to be masculine in gender because first-century Greek was a gendered language where masculine pronouns were used in mixed gender situations.

The previous edition of the NIV recognized that this was misleading, and translated it according to the conventions of the English language in 1984:

“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (NIV 1984)

The new NIV, based on the Collins' research project, uses gender-neutral plural pronouns with a generic, singular subject. Grammatical constructions such as this one occur three times more often in current English discourse then the masculine singular forms once advocated by our middle school English teachers. Here's how it sounds in Matthew 16:24:

"Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." (NIV 2011)

Is this changing the Word of God? Is this twisting the Scriptures? Or is it ensuring that the current generation will be able to understand the Word as it was intended? I vote for the latter option.

I've tried to give you a sense for the considerations that motivated the translation committee. In my last post of this series, I'll tell you why I think this is critically important. Stay tuned!

immigration reform . . . from the bottom up

"Esteemed Mr. President, 

 "My name is María Dolores, but I can't give you my last name or anybody's last name or where we live because I am not supposed to be in your wonderful country. I apologize that I am here without permission, but I think I can explain. My teacher at my new school, Mr. B., said for our first big writing project we could write anything we wanted. So I decided to write to you because I understand you are the one in charge of the United States."

So begins María's letter. Her honesty is disarming. Her letter pulls me in.

"Mr. B. came around, checking on our first paragraphs. When he saw my blank paper, he suggested I write about my family and our culture. But I am too afraid to call attention to our family being from Mexico because my classmates might turn us in. And it is not as simple as all going back to our homeland, because there is a division right down the center of our family. My parents and I are Mexicans and my two little sisters, Ofie and Luby, are Americans."

Are immigration issues too complicated to explain to children? Here's a child ready to explain it to grown-ups.

"I have seen you on the television, Mr. President, saying that you want democracy for this whole world. I sincerely hope you get your wish. But that will mean that if everyone in this world gets a vote, the majority will not be Americans. They will be people like me from other countries that are so very crowded and poor. We would be able to vote for what we want and need. So this letter is from a voter from that future when you would want to be treated as fairly as I am asking you to treat me."

María's request is simple, though fulfilling it is not.

"Please, Mr. President, let it be okay for my father and uncles to stay here helping this nice family and helping our own family back home buy the things they need. Every week, my father and his brothers each contribute forty dollars to send to our family in Mexico. This total is more than their father used to make in a whole month. He was a farmer, working from sunrise to sunset. But now he is an old man, Mr. President, as old as you are—although he looks much older. But the companies that buy corn and coffee did not pay enough for him to be able to even buy the stuff he needed for the next planting.

I know this must seem like an untruth because coffee costs so much in this country. The other day Tyler's mother took us to Burlington, and after she bought us ice creams, she stopped by a shop where all they sell is different kinds of coffees. A big cup was almost two dollars! Mr. President, please believe me that those two dollars are not reaching my family. In fact, as Tío Armando says, we have come north to collect what is owed to us for our hard work back where we came from."

The complexities of immigration reform unfold in this award-winning book by Julia Alvarez. Her story, Return to Sender, is the story of two children — a young farm boy in Vermont whose family is on the brink of losing everything, and a young girl from Mexico whose father and uncles move up North to work on that farm. These families need each other to survive.

Tyler and María are only in 5th grade, but together they face big challenges that require every ounce of courage and generosity they possess.

We need stories like these — stories that help us to see the world through someone else's eyes, stories that make us angry and yet fill our hearts with compassion we didn't know was there. The plot takes a number of unexpected turns, so to find out what happens, you'll have to read it yourself! You won't be sorry you did.

and the winners are . . .

After many happy hours perusing possible textbooks for my spring course on the Gospels/Acts at Multnomah, I have selected my favorites.

Because I have had little training in New Testament Greco-Roman backgrounds, I found The New Testament in Antiquity to be especially helpful. A trio of esteemed Wheaton professors - Gary Burge, Lynn Cohick, and Gene Green - pooled their expertise to produce a beautiful volume filled with crisp photographs, clear maps, helpful diagrams, and the latest in New Testament research, written for the non-specialist. Although the other volumes I considered would have worked, this seemed to be a book students could continue to use for years to come as they study the rest of the New Testament. It includes the right amount of information, written at the right level for college students.

It's a special bonus to know each of the authors and to have grown personally from interactions with each of them, but what was even more important to me was the testimony of a recent MA graduate from Wheaton who said this was her favorite book from grad school. The New Testament in Antiquity is the next best thing to taking students on a tour of the holy land. Having just been there myself in May, it was easy to tell that the photos in this book (as compared to others I saw) were the most up-to-date.

One of the strategic priorities of Multnomah's new president, Dr. Craig Williford, is to cultivate a diverse learning community. This not only includes variety in the types of students who populate our classes, but also variety in the authors and perspectives to which students are exposed during their studies. For this reason, I'm delighted to introduce students to Kenneth Bailey's Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels.

Bailey lived and taught in the middle east for 40 years, and his book helps readers take off their western lenses so they can read the text from a cultural perspective much closer to the ancient New Testament world. More than anything else, Bailey helps us consider new ways of reading and understanding the Bible. His book is endorsed by an impressive cadre of New Testament scholars, including Lynn Cohick and Gary Burge (above), Craig Keener, and Craig Evans.

Finally, students will need a good atlas as they follow Jesus' steps through the Gospels and the travels of the early apostles in the book of Acts. I considered a number of atlases, but in the end my favorite happened to be the most compact and affordable as well (that should make students happy!). It's paperback and slightly smaller than our main textbook. My biggest priorities were crisp photos, pleasing graphics, and maps that would give students a sense of the physical topography of the land of Israel. Now that I've been there, I feel that this aspect is so important. Carl Rasmussen's Zondervan Essential Atlas of the Bible provides all of these and more.

Here's my personal favorite, shared with permission from Zondervan:

Just a few months ago I sat on the edge of the ridge just south of Nazareth, looking out over the Jezreel Valley at Mt. Tabor and the Hill of Moreh. Now I can see that just over the ridge beyond Mt. Tabor is the Sea of Galilee. That would have been quite a hike!

I'm grateful to Zondervan and IVP for free exam copies of these books and others as well, and to Zondervan for providing free access to digital photos and maps for use in teaching. While I was not required to write a review of these books, I felt compelled to share these great resources with you.

things we never knew we never knew

Wheaton College (along with just about every other school on the continent) is taking serious steps towards enhancing the diversity of the student body. President Ryken considers it one of his top "strategic priorities." A new Office for Multicultural Development is open in the heart of the campus. Programs that send students overseas for 6 months of learning in their Senior year are expanding. This year's roster of chapel speakers includes women and men from a whole range of cultural backgrounds.

But why?

Cross-cultural engagement is hard work, with a lot of potential for offenses given and received. Hurtful comments and (more often) well-intentioned but ignorant remarks make community living awkward. So why bother?

The answer is simple, really. When we only hang out with people who are just like us we fail to realize how limited we are by our own narrow perspective and experience. Those of us who are white remain oblivious to the way our race grants us privileges that others must work much harder to achieve—privileges like trust, understanding, and "fitting in." Global engagement is important because it broadens our horizons, enriches our appreciation for others, and forces us to think more deeply about how to approach the world's most vexing problems.


In the wisdom of Disney's Pocahantas, "when you follow in the footsteps of a stranger, you'll learn things you never knew you never knew." We're blind to our own ignorance until we take the time to view the world from someone else's vantage point.

Even more importantly, global engagement matters because the kingdom of God transcends geographic, political, and ethnic boundaries. We have the honor of partnering together with our sisters and brothers around the world to bear God's Name among the nations. Working together offers a more complete picture of what Christ accomplished for us on the cross. Having torn down "the dividing wall of hostility" between Jews and Gentiles, Jesus invited his followers to bring this good news of reconciliation to the ends of the earth.

The trend in missions is for missionaries from anywhere to go to anywhere, often under non-Western leadership (glory!). The trend in higher education is to "encourage women and minorities to apply" for jobs and to actively recruit students from a wide range of backgrounds. The trend in our own interpersonal relationships is often woefully behind these organizational trends. Are you ready to learn things you never knew you never knew?

solve world poverty in one simple step

Eliana and I attended a screening Friday night of a documentary produced by a team of researchers who set out to discover how to end global poverty. What they found surprised them. In every country they visited, poverty's grip could be relaxed in one generation by doing just one simple thing: sending girls to school.

Girls who go to school are healthier,
     less likely to be married before the age of 15,
          less likely to be sold into bonded labor or sex slavery,
                 and more likely to contribute to their family's earnings.
Girls who are educated grow up to become moms who make sure their sons and daughters go to school.
Children of literate moms are 50% more likely to survive past age 5!
And an extra year of education increases a girl's earning potential by 20%.

But in many countries, girls do not go to school because families cannot afford to send them or because they don't see the point. If there is money to send just one child, her brother gets to go. Far too often educating a girl is seen as a "waste of time" because her place in life is working at home (where knowing how to read and how to think are apparently unnecessary). 66 million school-aged girls are not in school today. That's fully twice as many girls as boys who are not in school.

In some heartbreaking contexts, a girl is actually forbidden to learn to read.

In a country where it's illegal not to send girls to school, this is hard for us to imagine. Women in the US not only attend school, but a great many go on to college, grad school, and beyond. Believe me, after watching this film, I do not take this privilege for granted!

If you want to be both inspired and challenged, I highly recommend Girl Rising. You can learn more at www.girlrising.com. According to a study reported by Christianity Today earlier this year, child sponsorship is the single most effective long-term development strategy. If we pair these two studies, the solution is simple. To sponsor a young girl makes schooling possible and sends a message to her family that she's worth educating. Child sponsorship can be the first step to break the cycle of poverty. So what are you waiting for? Start here.

who IS here?

Some time ago I asked the question Who's Not Here? It's time to rephrase the question.

SIM, the mission agency we joined 10 years ago now, has been working in Africa for more than a century, and has since expanded into South America and Asia through mergers with other mission agencies. The original founders of SIM wanted to break ground in new territory, so they headed to the interior of Africa, then know as "the Soudan," to reach the unreached with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Since no agency was willing to send them to such a remote location, they started their own and called it "Soudan Interior Mission." Beginning in what is now known as Nigeria, these three brave men attempted to go where no (white) man had gone before. Only one of them survived the first expedition, but dozens and then hundreds of missionaries answered the call and have been following in their footsteps ever since. Today nearly 2000 SIM missionaries are serving around the world.

SIM has accomplished amazing things in its history, but nothing is more exciting (to me!) than what is happening right now. For the first time in SIM's history, we will be led by an African. Who better to help us think strategically about reaching non-Westerners than a non-Westerner? Dr. Joshua Bogunjoko has been unanimously nominated to take over as International Director of SIM next summer. He is well-educated, with years of experience in mission work and mission leadership, and he is Nigerian. But most importantly, he is a humble man of God.

We had the blessing of an hour of fellowship with Joshua last week in our home. When we asked him his "agenda" or "goal" for SIM, we were struck by his desire to listen. His wisdom and experience will serve our mission well, but he is no bulldozer. Joshua exudes humility and gratitude.

His appointment to this role is evidence of a deep transformation in the way SIM missionaries think about missions. It's not US and THEM, but WE. We're moving from PATRON to PARTNER, and from SUPERIOR to SERVANT. No doubt parochial attitudes persist in all of us, but we're watching with joy as Howie Brant's vision for SIM to send missionaries "from anywhere to anywhere" is becoming a reality. We now have Latinos serving in India, Ethiopians in Sudan, Filipinos in Mongolia . . . and Nigerians in the USA. Glory!

While we're counting noses, I have to say I was delighted this week with the first meeting of the Global Theological Education Discussion Group at Wheaton. I'm part of the leadership team for this informal group this year, where we invite knowledgeable speakers to help us think more deeply about the task of theological education around the world. In the past most of the attendees have been (white!) PhD students, but yesterday we had 6 new (non-PhD) faces around the table, and only one of them was white. Students from Indonesia, India, Korea, and Brazil enriched our conversation as we considered the place of spiritual warfare in a theological curriculum. Wheaton is making a concerted effort towards greater diversity, and it shows.

Globalization is something of a fad right now, but I must say it's one of the best fads I have ever seen. Long may it live, and transform the way we think, talk, and live.

After all, this is a small world, and we're in this together.

on being a woman in a man's world

I've always wondered how it feels to be Louisa May Alcott in a whole deck of male authors.  Like it or not, I'm getting a taste of it myself.

Perhaps you're not aware that the field of Biblical Studies and Theology is male-dominated.  It is.  Things are changing, but the demographics are a long way from being gender balanced.  That's nice for someone like me (i.e. a female) when it comes to applying to schools or applying for jobs.  There is a genuine desire to invite women to the table, but for various reasons we are still a minority.

You may have noticed this in my recent Blockhead lunch photo. Our Associate Dean did. When I was getting a cup of coffee he approached me with a knowing smile. "I couldn't help but notice that you are the only woman at that table," he said. Indeed. He expressed how glad he was to have me as part of the program. I'm glad to be here, too, but I do feel out of place sometimes.

• There are 27 people in the room for Dr. Block's Exegesis of Deuteronomy class.  Six of us are women.  (As long as we're counting noses, I might mention that only 2 of the students are Asian and only 1 brave soul is African-American!)
• Seven new students were admitted to Wheaton's PhD program this year.  Two of us are women. Last year, though a woman was offered admission to the program, only men ended up coming.
• Of the 30+ doctoral students in the program right now, six are women. In spite of Wheaton's best efforts to diversify the program, there simply aren't enough women or international applicants to balance things out. (Last year only 12 of the 82 applicants were women and even fewer were from other cultures.)
• In the Isaiah seminar I'm taking this semester with Dr. Schultz, I'm the only woman.
• None of Wheaton's faculty supervisors for PhD students are women.
• At last year's annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, women made up about 10% of the crowd of 2500. Probably half of those women were there as spouses of scholars, not scholars themselves.

Why? I can see several reasons.

• Conservative interpretation of certain Bible passages has determined that certain roles in the church (such as teaching adult men) be restricted to men. Since the teaching jobs that require a doctorate usually have mixed groups of students, there has been little reason for a conservative woman to get a doctorate.
• Women are naturally preoccupied with bearing and raising children, making graduate work especially challenging. Few husbands are as willing as Danny is to share household tasks so equally and make it possible for their wives to study. It goes against the grain to do so.
• In spite of the relative equality that women now enjoy in society at large, deep-seated cultural perceptions of what is "feminine" push women away from academia. I suspect this is stronger inside the church than outside.

What's the big deal?  Why do we need more women in this field?

• Women need role models.  We need to see women who are using their intellectual gifts in service of the church and the academy.  Gifted young women need to know that they can use their minds for God's glory as well as their hands and heart.  Children's ministry is a high calling, but it's not the only way women can contribute to the body of Christ.  Neither is cooking for potlucks!
• Humans naturally have blind spots.  Generations of white men have set the agenda for biblical studies, and as a result things have sometimes become lopsided.  These men have made very valuable contributions to biblical scholarship, but their work can be strengthened though conversations with others who bring different perspectives to the table.

I'm excited. It feels like I'm in the right place at the right time. A hundred years ago it would have been impossible. Even ten years ago it would have been a much lonelier journey. Today I am invited, welcomed, valued, and embraced. And I am not alone. Other women have gone before me, and others walk beside me (even if only a few). I'm delighted to have Dr. Karen Jobes as my second reader for my dissertation. Not only is she a great scholar, but she's walked this road as a woman and has so much to offer.

A special treat awaits me this week. Last spring I started asking around to see if other women might want to room together at the annual meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Society of Biblical Literature. The group just grew and grew! One room turned into three. Now fourteen other women from all across the country will be joining me in San Francisco for these meetings. What a joy it will be to share the experience together!

remembering 9/11

I've been caught by surprise twice now at the depth of emotion I still feel remembering 9/11.  Eliana was an infant on that fateful day - alive, but oblivious to the horror that swept the nation as we watched the events play out.  It wasn't until she was in first grade or so that it occurred to me to tell her about that day.  As I told her I couldn't help but weep.  She was suprised to see mommy cry.  I rarely do.

Tonight at dinner it was Emma's turn to hear the story.  She's 6 now, and that must be the magic age of maturity for things like this.  Step by step we walked her through the horrifying events.  Again I cried.

Why does it still feel so raw 10 years later?  Why tears?

I guess it was the biggest world event that had happened in my adult life, or at least the biggest one I witnessed live.  (I do vaguely remember when "The Wall" came down in Germany, but I was not old enough to appreciate its significance.)  I'll never forget the call from my Dad that we should turn on the TV because a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center.  His urgency seemed odd to me.  Planes crash now and then.  It's sad when it happens, but Dad was insistent that we watch.  And watch we did, as before our very eyes the second plane hit the second tower.  It was in that horrifying moment that the sickening truth sunk to the pit of my stomach:

This was intentional.

Panic ensued.  The events unfolded too quickly for us to process them.  The Pentagon crash.  The collapse of the two towers as the pavement swallowed them whole, a living grave for hundreds and thousands of people. The 4th plane crash in a cornfield, an aborted attempt to bomb the White House.  Where will they strike next?

The stunned silence of the next few hours and days was filled with tears, pleas from family members for information on their loved ones, stories of people who should have been in the towers and were not, stories of the brave men and women who had been running up the stairs to their death when everyone else was running down to safety.

Other tragedies have happened in our lifetime, larger ones even.  Tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, wars, shootings, even.  For me, 9/11 was different because it was on our soil, the effects were massive, and it was intentional.  No one knew where it would hit next.  "Terror" came home.  That day a new generation learned that humans are capable of unthinkable evil, and even the invicible United States was brought to its knees.

I'm sure you remember the groundswell of prayer that ensued.  I wish that could have been the most lasting after-effect.  Naturally it gave way to finger-pointing, blame, and a thirst for revenge.  War was inevitable, we just had to locate our enemy (a process that took nearly 10 years!).  Meanwhile, America developed a deep distrust of Muslims from any country.  For me this was equally tragic.  Unfortunately, the line between revenge and justice can be a blurry one. 

I'll always be grateful that we had the opportunity to move overseas shortly afterwards and live among people who looked different than we do.  By the time the third anniversary of 9/11 came around I could count 80 Muslims among my friends.  They gave their children names like Ishmael, Hussein, and yes, even Osama bin Laden.  But I loved them and they loved me back.  I knew I was safe in their community because they were looking out for me.  My one desire was to show them the love of Jesus. 

Did you know that Jesus loves Muslims?  He did before 9/11, and he still does.  We can let our fear or hurt or mistrust build walls between us and the Muslims in our communities, or we can cross the line, extend a hand, and offer the gift of friendship.  It's the only way to reverse the cycle of hatred and revenge.  Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me!

the danger of a single story

Relating to the question of Who's Not Here? (see below) here's a link to a very challenging address given by Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Adichie.  Get ready for 19 minutes that will change the way you think about the rest of the world!

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html

who's not here?

It's on my mind almost any time I walk into church, or a classroom or a conference like ETS.  I hadn't put it into words, though, until just a few days ago.  Ken Baker asked this question in his thought-provoking session on cultural diversity in missions at ETS.  Who's not here?

I've already mentioned the fact that ETS is dominated by white men.  Their presence is not a bad thing, but the list of who's not here is rather long.  Are there vibes or assumptions or invisible walls keeping others away?  There are, of course, many evangelicals who believe that Bible teaching is a role reserved for men.  That accounts for the lack of women.  But why not black men? asian men? latino men?  Is the notion of an academic society too thoroughly western?  Perhaps.

I was delighted to find in my intital seminary classes that there was no majority.  Race, gender, age, denominational background, economic class ... our classrooms were a total mix.  Learning is rich in such an environment.  (It's hard for a Reformed student to build a straw Arminian and knock it down in class when he's sitting beside one!)  I have found, however, that this does not hold true for upper level classes (Hebrew Exegesis, for example).  Things are looking white, white, white (and in some classes male, male, male).  It's not as though I wish there were fewer white men in my classes, it's just that my list of who's not here grows longer.  And why does it matter?  Because if we only listen to ourselves our theology will be lopsided, no matter how hard we try to keep our eyes fully open to Scripture.  We need each other - brothers and sisters of other races and backgrounds - to help us understand the full message of Christ for the church.

According to Rev 7:9, we will finally be able to stop asking this question around the throne of God.  Then, finally, all nations will be represented.  But on this side of eternity, why do we keep to our own kind?  Ken suspects that we carry around in our hearts the belief that people who are not like us don't have anything to offer that we need.  Ouch.  So look around and ask yourself, who's not here?  Because what - or who - you don't know can hurt you.