You may or may not have seen my post from a couple of weeks ago about some of our family's adventures in cross-cultural existence, specifically regarding our application for Elliot's leave-of-absence from the last few weeks of the school year (for a three-month "home service leave" required by our employer).  Believe it or not, that first conversation with the local Compulsory Education Bureaucrat (leerplichtambtenaar) was just the beginning of the insanity.

Since that initial conversation, I estimate that we've spent over ten hours and over €200 (almost $300 U.S. dollars), bending backwards to meet the demands and requests of the Compulsory Education Bureaucrat.  Just today, I had another thirty-minute conversation with the gentleman, talking through the intricacies of our (what he has described as being a) "highly complex case."  I honestly don't see what's so complex about everything, but I know that the guy is just doing his best to do his job.

According to tentative indications from today's conversation,  unfortunately, it sounds like the Compulsory Education Bureaucrat is somewhat inclined to deny our application.  We talked about it at length, and I'm hoping that our conversation today may have helped to tip the scales back a bit more in our direction, but the whole thing is still very much up in the air.  Thus, I would like to ask if you would seriously pray with us for a favorable resolution to this situation.  It may seem like a silly, trivial, insignificant thing to pray for -- and it may seem like a process that's largely out of the hands of God (and firmly in the inescapable hands of the Dutch Bureaucracy) -- but a negative decision from the Compulsory Education Bureaucrat could have significant ramifications for our family's emotional and financial well-being.  Even if there is a negative decision, we could still appeal the matter to a higher-up "Board of Compulsory Education Bureaucrats" -- and then even if they rule against us we could appeal to the Dutch legal system (i.e. a real court case)... But we really hope it doesn't go that far.

So could you please pray for us in this matter?  We would really appreciate it. 

A few dozen police officers in full riot gear, 15 armored vehicles, a crowd of bystanders -- and all of this just around the corner from our house this afternoon! Never a dull moment in Amsterdam Oost...

The action was centered around the clearing out of a squat-house on the Steve Bikoplein. I never knew much about squatting before I moved to Amsterdam (I suppose I still really don't know that much about it), but it's an interesting phenomenon to consider and observe. According to Wikipedia, "squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use." In the Netherlands, the societal treatment of the squatting movement is somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, it's basically illegal behavior; but on the other hand squatters are offered a number of legal protections. On the one hand, squatters are viewed as dangerous, anarchist revolutionaries; but on the other hand, they hold a certain degree of public support and admiration for their cause. Again, quoting Wikipedia, "In the Netherlands, if a building is not in use for twelve months and the owner has no pressing need to use it (such as a rental contract starting in the next month), then it can be legally squatted. The only illegal aspect would be forcing an entry, if that was necessary. When a building is squatted it is normal to send the owner a letter and to invite the police to inspect the squat. The police check whether the place is indeed lived in by the squatter -- in legal terms this means there must be a bed, a chair, a table and a working lock in the door which the squatter can open and close."

Interesting, huh?

I used to think that squatters were just counter-cultural for the sake of being counter-cultural. I thought they simply didn't want to go to the trouble of paying rent or maintaining their own place -- so they squat someone else's building. If I'm being perfectly honest with myself, I guess I thought they were a lawless crowd just looking for an excuse to not work and just sit around using drugs all day. But as I've gotten to know some squatters personally, and as I've learned more about their subculture (and there is indeed a very defined and highly refined subculture among squatters -- it's not merely a reactionary counter-culture), I've seen that many squatters are highly principled idealists. They are political activists. They see themselves as social engineers. They are philosophically motivated by Marxist ideologies to make the world a better place -- a place where everyone is valued, where everyone is granted access to the basic elements of life, where society is not motivated by unadulterated materialism.

I don't know if I could ever see myself "joining" the squatting movement for myself. But I have come to respect the philosophy behind squatting. They actually embody a number of Christian principles to an extent that many Christians do not. Of all the people with whom I've interacted in our neighborhood, the squatters have been some of the most neighborly.

Today, though, the police came to clear out one of the neighborhood squat houses. Apparently, the owner of the building in which a colony of squatters had taken up residence decided that he wanted to use the space again, and he jumped through the many hoops needed to circumnavigate the government's red tape so that the ontruiming (clearing out) was legally sanctioned and supported by the city police force. And they seriously supported the ontruiming. It was incredible. They had water canons mounted on trucks (which you can see in the photographs above and below). They had a small remote-controlled helicopter, about the diamter of a hula hoop, with a camera hovering around the scene (which you can see in the picture above), presumably gathering information on the whereabouts of the squatters within the house. There were perhaps 50 or 60 police officers in riot gear formed the perimeter (with their backs to the action), supposedly watching out for any raiding bands of sympathetic squatters from other colonies in the city. Another two-dozen motorcycle cops watched from outside the circle. Another dozen or so formed the crew that actually stormed the building. It was quite the effort.

No wonder the event generated a crowd from the neighborhood.

In the end, the ontruiming ended up being somewhat anticlimactic. After the police force stormed the squat house, it was only a minute or two before they came out with perhaps 10 to 15 squatters chanting protest slogans as they were escorted to the paddy wagons that would take them away.

Even so, it was an interesting afternoon in Amsterdam Oost.

Over the weekend, I got my absentee ballot in the mail: my ticket to participation in the Great American Democracy. I had thought that my participation in the Ohio primaries -- scheduled in the month of March, some time after the majority of the states have already held their primaries -- would be a formality more than anything. Which wouldn't actually have bothered me all that much. I've come to take pride in these "formalities," especially now, as an American citizen living abroad. But after significant gains over the past weekend for Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, it seems like the race for the White House is still far from finished. Perhaps my participation in the Ohio primary is not so meaningless after all...

So does anyone have any great advice for me, as I consider my options in completing my absentee ballot?

In particular, if there's anyone else reading this blog from Richland County, Ohio, I would be much obliged for any information for me for Member of State Central Committee, Mansfield (19th District) -- between Jeff Wilkinson and Richard A. Cochran.  That particular race isn't getting much coverage here in Amsterdam.  :-)  And believe it or not, aside from a couple of other tax levies (which are pretty self-explanatory), this is the only other  real choice on the ballot, outside of the presidential primary.

At Zolder50, we've recently been studying Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, chapters 5-7) -- and in particular, over the last month, we've been studying Jesus' directives on sexuality, marriage, and divorce. If that wasn't enough information on the topic, our home group has been studying -- in a separate study -- the book of 1 Corinthians, and it just so happened that yesterday evening was a discussion about marriage and sexuality, from the 7th chapter of the book. Earlier this year, on this blog, I also spent some time studying out the issue of Sexuality and Spirituality... and I've definitely been challenged to closely consider some of the complex issues relating to sexuality and relationships in our culture today. Over the last couple of weeks, I've been chewing on one question in particular:

Is there room in the community of Christ for (non-sexual) same-sex covenant relationships?

I still haven't completely settled my own mind on these issues, but I guess I'm just asking: Do we as Christians need to be opposed to same-sex civil unions -- perhaps as a means of protecting ourselves from treading into dangerous regions of the slippery slope leading to unabashed worldliness? Or do we need to get creative when it comes to making allowances for our Christian brothers and sisters desiring to strive for lives of celibacy? I've been wondering about this a lot lately...

Now, I'm not naive. I realize that the vast majority (if not the entirety) of those choosing for civil unions in the Netherlands (or advocating for acceptance of civil unions or "gay marriage" in the USA or other parts of the world) are (homo-)sexually active. And I honestly don't know how successfully we could ever divorce the idea of sex from covenant relationships (particularly those originally instituted to mimic marriage). But could it be worthwhile to try to walk this fine line?

The rise of homosexuality in Western culture is truly remarkable. And while I believe that this certainly has something to do with our culture's idolization of Eros -- I also happen to believe that it's about much more than sex (I might even dare to say that the sexual aspect of homosexuality is a relatively small part of the equation). From my experience, it seems like some of the biggest felt needs of the homosexual community are belonging, acceptance, companionship, and family (I should also note that this likely holds true for all people who don't fit into the "standard" mold of the "married-with-children" crowd)... I suspect that a lot of it comes down to questions like, "Who will I spend Christmas with? Or New Year's Eve? Or Valentine's Day?" "Who will take care of me in my old age?" "How am I ever going to travel to see the Great Wall of China or the grasslands of Africa or the quays of Paris -- if I don't have a traveling companion?" Or perhaps a bit more macabre: "Who will organize my funeral?" "To whom will I pass along my family heirlooms?" Maybe it's offensive for me (one of the "married-with-children" crowd) to speculate so broadly about this, but I genuinely wonder...

And while I certainly believe that we need to encourage each other to cast down our idols and find hope from its True Source, I wonder if we could still benefit from considering ways to care for the practical needs of people within our community who choose to embrace a life of singleness.

My thinking here is not so dissimilar to the way that the Catholic church has historically taken care of those who have taken vows of celibacy (i.e. priests and nuns). Certain orders of sisters or brothers have had group living arrangements, group activities, group missions (i.e. taking care of orphans, feeding the poor)... Perhaps such a concept needs to be revisited for post-"Church-Era," post-modern, Western society... Yes, maybe establishing new "orders" of brothers and/or sisters is, in fact, the way to go. Adapt the antiquated, not-so-cool ways of dressing, naming, and stereotyping these groups of people (the idea of "becoming a nun" or "becoming a priest" may just have too much accumulated cultural baggage)... And voila! A lot of those most urgent felt needs and most pressing questions about life as a single person have answers! But then again, maybe -- in a more post-modern, decentralized, "organic," anti-institutional, missional ministry- (and life-) context -- maybe it makes sense to think about covenant friendships and civil unions...

There is some biblical precedent for this. 1 Samuel 18 and 20 talk about the covenant friendship between David and Jonathan, which was solemnly and repeatedly sworn in the presence of God and each other. (Some have suggested that David and Jonathan were, in fact, homosexual -- though the Hebrew verbs chosen for their "love" and other factors surrounding their relationship make this highly unlikely, in my mind). The closest biblical parallel to David and Jonathan's relationship (at least, etymologically-speaking, according to the commentaries I've referenced) would be the relationship between Jacob and his son Benjamin (Genesis 44:30 uses some of the same terminology to describe how Jacob's "life is closely bound up with (Benjamin's) life") -- but my mind also wanders to relationships like Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:15-22) and Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's less formal partnership to support each other through times of testing (Daniel 1:6-20). Even so, I'll admit that the idea of covenant friendships / "life partnerships" for celibate believers is a bit of a leap for contemporary contexts. Especially considering the fact that we don't want to set up stumbling blocks for people who may struggle with feelings of attraction toward people of the same sex, I realize that we need to be sensitive and perhaps build in some protections for people in these situations (like choosing to establish a covenant between a group of three people, instead of just two). In any event, this idea of a covenant friendship is an interesting point of consideration...

Now, I'm going a little bit further out on a limb here (again, remember that I'm still more or less thinking out loud) -- but coupled with the current cultural allowances for (or aims toward allowances for) same-sex civil unions, doesn't it seem that such an idea could have some extra practicability? Why not take advantage of the opportunities presented by the current political system and allow those individuals who are committed to God and to lives of purity and celibacy to have the same tax benefits, immigration benefits, health benefits, and death-and-disability benefits that married couples enjoy?

Now, I have long been (and will long continue to be) an ardent supporter of God's definitions for marriage, family, and sexuality -- but I see a clear distinction between these things and the concept of "civil unions." God joins man and woman together in marriage and blesses their physical, emotional, and spiritual union; the government chooses how it will recognize this union and work out the economic and political implications for society. The Dutch system of marriage and civil unions has helped me to understand this. In the Netherlands, any two people wishing to formally join their lives together (Christians, Hindus, secular humanists, homosexual couples, heterosexual couples) must first report to City Hall and make their solemn pledges and process their paperwork for the government. Then, after the civil ceremonies are completed, the spiritual significance may (or may not) be independently observed. A Christian couple, then, will typically get all dressed up, go to City Hall and do the civil thing, then go get some pictures in the park, then go to the church and say their wedding vows betfore God and each other, then have a big party (or a series of parties) with their friends and family, and then consummate the marriage in the privacy of their bedroom that night. A secular couple, though, will get dressed up, go to City Hall and do the civil thing (if they're the sentimental / romantic / traditional type, they may even do this with the long white dress and pick the script that calls it all a "marriage"), then go get some pictures in the park and follow it all up with a big party (or series of parties) with their friends and family (the "consumation" part of their relationship has probably already happened much earlier -- though, again, if they're the sentimental / romantic / traditional type of couple, they may maintain all the trappings of a special wedding night and a honeymoon... on a more "optional" basis, of course). So you see how it works? The spiritual part of things is skipped or substituted based on the desires of the couple. From the secular government's point of view, it doesn't matter! They just want to have it on file that "Person A" and "Person B" now apply for exclusive status as a recognized couple -- and that's it. It actually makes a lot of sense to me (though it's certainly different from the traditional American way of doing things, which also makes sense to me).

So if we have Christian brothers and sisters who want to formally commit themselves to a life of celibacy and sexual purity -- but who would be aided and supported by having someone else (or a couple of other friends) in the same situation to do life together with them -- then why wouldn't we want to consider the advantages of covenant friendships (on the spiritual level) and civil unions (on the societal level)? Think about it: How cool would it be to celebrate a day with two spiritual siblings (I suppose it could be a brother and sister, just as much as a brother/brother and sister/sister) as they formally commit to a life of serving God wholeheartedly, without the distractions of marriage (like Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 7)?!? I mean, we could do the big party and the special pictures and special clothes and all that -- with all the practical benefits besides -- and it could be a cultural statement to deepen the respect for love and marriage and sexuality and family...

I don't know... Am I talking crazy here?!?! Have I become too influenced by the liberal Amsterdam way of thinking? Would something like this compromise the image of the church or the sanctity of marriage and family? Would anyone actually choose to make such a statement with his or her life? I guess I'm externally processing more than anything... but it is interesting to wonder...

I honestly can't figure out if I'm impressed or revolted by the intricacies of Dutch bureaucracy. Today I was freshly reminded of the government's incredible depth and complexity. I had a meeting at 10:00 this morning with a city official to process our family's request for our son to miss the last seven weeks of kindergarten, in order to accommodate for an employer-required three-month "home service leave" (a.k.a. furlough) that cannot but result in some school being missed, since the Dutch summer vacation is only six weeks long. The job title of the man with whom I met was leerplichtambtenaar, which -- I am not making this up -- can be very literally translated as "compulsory education bureaucrat." Truthfully, I was expecting a fifteen-minute "rubber stamp" type meeting -- more or less automatically approving our request (since the teachers and administrators at Elliot's school haven't expressed any concern about our plans, and since -- seriously -- we're talking about a six-year-old missing a seven-week stretch of kindergarten!). But I really should have known better.

The Compulsory Education Bureaucrat had really done his homework heading into our meeting. He had apparently already spoken, voice-to-voice, with the administration at Elliot's school (and I can't remember for sure, but I think he even said that he had talked with Elliot's kindergarten teacher herself) and gotten a full report of Elliot's educational development and even our family's general involvement in the school. He had researched the website for Great Commission Ministries (my employer) and printed out mission statements and descriptions of the organization's world-wide activity. And as he fetched cappuchinos for us to enjoy while we talked, I realized that our meeting was to be no fifteen-minute rubber stamping. In fact, it was an hour-and-a-half of discussion. The tone of the discussion was very pleasant, even neighborly, but the questions were deep, sincere, and probing:

What exactly is your function within the organization?

Tell me more about your "home groups." What is the purpose of "home groups" and your function in them?

How did you become a Christian?

So would you say that you feel "called" to work in the Netherlands?

Why does GCM require a three-month "home service leave?" Don't they realize that it conflicts with Dutch educational law?

What exactly will you be doing while you're on your "home service leave?"

How is it exactly that your work in the Netherlands is financially supported?

Is it really necessary that your wife and children come along with you for your home service leave? Couldn't they just join you for the six weeks of the Dutch summer vacation in July and August?

I got the sense that the Compulsory Education Bureaucrat was genuinely trying to understand and not simply antagonize me. At certain moments, I even felt a sense of personal interest in who I am and what I do (he confessed that he was brought up in a Christian home). I could completely understand that the Compulsory Education Bureaucrat had been commissioned by the government to do a certain job, to enforce a certain set of laws, and to conscientiously evaluate each case that came across his desk. Yet I was simultaneously astonished by the amount of time, energy, and money that the Dutch government puts into the investigation of a single family's request for seven weeks of absence from school. I was frustrated that the Dutch philosophy of education stresses the importance of paid professionals so much more than the importance of parents. And I was shocked to leave the office of the Compulsory Education Bureaucrat with a considerable stack of homework to be completed before the application for an extended leave of absence will be further processed.

I have to arrange for professional translation of GCM employment policies (as they relate to home service leave). I have to fill out a detailed schedule of my travel plans for the summer (preferably with visual aids, i.e. maps, to help contextualize and inform the necessity of an extended period of leave). I have to write out a detailed Education Plan for Elliot, explaining how we will continue to prioritize our son's education while missing school in the Netherlands. I have to provide extra employment documents (my work contract, the mission statement of GCM, a letter from GCM headquarters explaining the intent of a home service leave and the necessity of including the entire family for the entire duration of the home service leave) -- all professionally translated into Dutch by an government-sanctioned translation business. It's crazy!

But I'm working on it. I thought it was interesting today, to map out our travel plans for this summer and compare the scope of American geography to that of the Netherlands (I've displayed the results of this work here on the right, for your amusement). I don't even bother to mark out the differences between Peoria and Chicago, Minneapolis and Alexandria, because the scope of American geography is so much greater than that of the Netherlands (even though the journey between cities like these, even within the same state, would be equal to the distance between two cities in the Netherlands that would be considered "very far apart"). You gotta love the culture clashes, don't you?

I'm definitely able to see the humor in all of this and enjoy the experience for what it is. But all the same, any prayer support that you might want to provide would be greatly appreciated.