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.

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.

I've been informed by my sources (The Joyful Anticipation) that today is to be a blog action day, where supposedly everyone writes a post about the environment in order to get the whole of cyberspace debating green issues.  So I figured I'd go ahead and add my thoughts to the mix.  For quite some time, actually, I've been trying to figure out:  what is a Christian response to environmentalism?  Are we supposed to be the greenest of the green?  Or are we supposed to point to a different definition of "saving the planet?"

I grew up in the American Midwest -- that vast clump of "red states" -- where conservatism, common sense, and Christianity were all inextricably linked to the Republican party (supposedly because of moral issues like abortion and euthanasia) and thus inexplicably divorced from environmentalism, which was considered Democrat territory and thus strictly off-limits.  Environmentalism was better left to those starry-eyed, middle-aged hippie eco-freaks out in San Francisco -- and not something in which to tangle our Midwest sensibility.  Unconsciously, I developed a distaste for the idea of environmentalism during my growing-up years.

But as I got into my university days and started developing as a free-thinking adult, I started to re-examine my views on environmentalism.  My friend Ben, who was studying resource management or something like that, sold me on the virtues of recycling (I still remember the green bookmark -- a gift from Ben -- which was stuck in my Bible for years:  a BGSU falcon logo, surrounded by three curving arrows and the words "Reduce - Re-use - Recycle") and was probably my first example of a Christian environmentalist.  Slowly but surely, I started to think greener, act greener, and identify myself more with green causes.

And then I moved to Europe -- which as as sure-fire a way to accelerate that process as I know.  I started to befriend militant environmentalists.  Our church started to grapple more with its role in conservation, clean water, clean air, social responsibility, and so on.  I started to see more and more of the bizarre inconsistencies in the way that the political deck had been shuffled in America -- and I tried to develop my own convictions on green issues.  It's a process that continues to this day...

I've come to see that environmentalism can be very compatible with following Christ.  In fact, the Bible tells us that we are specifically designated as managers of the earth's resources -- caretakers of Eden and its aftermath.  Jesus himself explicitly states that we will be critically evaluated for the ways in which we manage the resources which have been entrusted to us, and I for one cannot see why this would not apply to natural resources as well as financial resources or spiritual resources... And perhaps most importantly, we are repeatedly commanded to "Love your neighbor as yourself" -- which certainly must also be considered on the environmental level, as every natural resource I use is one less unit of resources that can be used by others, by my neighbors.  If my carbon emissions can be linked to patterns of drought and famine, or to melting ice caps that could potentially drown entire civilizations -- then I need to be as conscious, careful, and caring as I can be, in view of these far-flung "neighbors" that can be affected by my resource management.  Jesus compared himself to a green tree... He illustrated the Kingdom of God to be like a sprawling green tree offering shelter to the birds of the air... So clearly, there is a case for Christians to identify with green causes.

Still, I wonder if we also need to be careful and stress the importance of balance in our thinking about green issues.  Sometimes, I worry that we might go too far in our shuffling of priorities.  At times, since adjusting to a green kind of Christianity here in Amsterdam, I've seen environmentalism become almost like a new kind of Pharisaism.  Occasionally, people will cast judgment on those who are "wasteful," without considering any extenuating circumstances that might be at play.  If not carefully considered and submitted to God, environmentalism can become an exacting legalism -- not unlike Jewish dietary restrictions which plagued the First Century church... At times, the green lifestyle can almost become a "different gospel," something to please men more than God, something taking our focus away from the true message of God's Kingdom and replacing it with a more narrow-minded view.  When we get too caught up in green legalism (or any kind of legalism), we can so easily forget that "It is for freedom that Christ set us free."

Obviously, there is a need for balance.  We need to be mindful of God's incredible grace and mindful of our responsibility to serve as Christ's ambassadors.  The New Testament book of 1 Corinthians is full of advice for such situations.  Above all is the refrain:  "'Everything is permissible' -- but not everything is beneficial.  'Everything is permissible' -- but not everything is constructive.  Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others" (1 Corinthians 10:23-33)... We need to keep the focus on loving each other.  "'Everything is permissible for me' -- but not everything is beneficial.  'Everything is permissible for me' -- but I will not be mastered by anything.  'Food for the stomach and the stomach for food' -- but God will destroy them both" (1 Corinthians 6:12-13)... We need to keep everything in perspective.  In the end, it seems that we need to remember:  "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.  Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether environmentalists, economy-shoppers, or the church of God -- even as I try to please everybody in every way" (1 Corinthians 10:31-33, NIV with minor adaptations by Eric Asp).

When considering green issues, it seems that everyone could benefit from considering the practical challenges of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10 (read these scenarios as if they were talking about organic / non-organic food instead of non-kosher products or meat sacrificed to idols; it's a conversation that I've heard many times in Amsterdam!).  Romans 14:1 offers such a beautiful reminder:  "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters..." And I think it's particularly interesting to note that it doesn't say which side is the "weak" side and which side is the "strong" side.  Perhaps old-school Christian conservatives need to offer such grace and acceptance to "those crazy environmental whackos."  Perhaps green Christians need to offer such grace and acceptance to "those fat-cat resource-mongers."  I'm not trying to defend or prosecute anyone here.  I'm just wondering if we could stand to think through these things more critically and less dogmatically...

Environmental issues are important, and they must be carefully considered.  Like I said, I'm still learning and growing and developing my own convictions on things.  But even now, going along with the upshot of 1 Corinthians 10, I know that we must carefully consider how we can set an example for others to follow, as we follow the example of Christ.

Cross-cultural living -- having a footing on both American culture and European culture -- can offer some interesting and surprising perspectives on world events.  The news coverage of the recent hearings on Capitol Hill, with General David Petraeus (the top U.S. commander in Iraq) and Ryan Crocker (the U.S. ambassador to Iraq) reporting the situation in Iraq to the houses of Congress, is a prime case in point...

I read the Dutch newspaper first this morning (the NRC Next's cover article, to be specific).  According to this news source, the results of the hearings have been unexpectedly positive.  The general tone of the article was incredibly optimistic (especially considering that European media have been critical of the American policy in Iraq since the first day of airstrikes against Baghdad).  The article basically insinuated that Petraeus was the one true voice that could be trusted on the relative "success" of the Iraq campaigns, and that Americans were generally united in their respect of his integrity in reporting from the front-lines.  By the time I was finished reading the NRC Next article, I got the feeling that a corner had somehow been turned... that maybe these Americans weren't so stupid after all... that maybe something good could come out of the American intervention in Iraq.

Then, within the same hour, I read an American newspaper's take on the same events (the USA Today's on-line edition, to be specific -- which, at the time, placed the story as a third-tier headline, beneath the news of September 11th memorials and football scores).  And acrroding to this news source, the results of the hearings were overwhelmingly negative.  The tone of the article suggested that Washington was more gridlocked than ever on American war policy and that the proceedings on Capitol Hill had been more or less a "dog and pony show" (I believe that was an exact quote from one of the articles that I read this morning, though I cannot now find the same article on-line).  By the time I finished reading the USA Today article, I got the feeling that things were as much -- if not more -- of a quagmire than ever before, and that hope was nowhere in sight.

To say the least, they were very different perspectives.

What's most unusual, though, is that I would have expected the treatment of the story and the attitude of these news sources to be completely reversed.  I always expect the criticism of the Iraq war to be twice as harsh, coming from European news sources; and I expect that coverage from an American news source (particularly the more populist press, i.e. the USA Today) is at least tentatively optimistic... Furthermore, I would normally expect to find the story on the fourth or fifth page -- the International News section -- of the Dutch papers; and I would think that American papers would make the bigger headlines about the hearings.

I honestly don't know which news source captured the story most accurately (since I didn't watch through the hearings themselves, though they were aired live on television here).  I don't even know how possible it is to "accurately" capture such a story as testimony before a divided Congress.  I understand that perspectives on the war in Iraq are greatly varied -- both in the United States of America and around the world -- but I don't understand exactly how or why these various opinions proliferate in the ways they do.

Interesting stuff...