Reading in Spanglish

A Culture of "Truthiness"

2007-03-01T21:29:00.000-05:00

In a moment that should be forever enshrined in television history, Stephen Colbert coined "truthiness" on the premiere episode of The Colbert Report. In a single, albeit semantically ridiculous word, Colbert encapsulated the epistemological ethos of our time. Whether in politics, popular culture, or religion, opinions--no matter how baseless or otiose--rule supreme. Truth is utterly negotiable and fundamentally a matter of personal choice. In many ways, we have become a culture of delusion, in which perception feigns as reality.

Examples of this phenomenon abound. Political spin is now the parlance of governmental authorities with our current vice-president the primary offender, but epistemological fantasies are most acute in reality television. Contestants on Deal or No Deal who have just opened one case too many console themselves with a shared mantra: "That's okay, that's okay." Really? Your dreams of riches have just been crushed in front of a national audience suffering with you on the surface but truly relishing your loss. But "that's okay!" American Idol contestants whose pride surpasses talent dismiss critical assessments of their abilities as "just your opinion."

I am in no way a fundamentalist nor do I have much use for "Absolute Truth" (capitalized, of course). To be sure, I would argue that humans play an active role in the construction of truth, that we ultimately have to take full responsibility for those truths upon which we stake our lives. But a facile relativism that simply views all perspectives as matters of opinion and each as equally valid is just as dangerous as a rigid absolutism that claims to know the very mind of God in all matters.

The negotiated nature of truth is not an invitation for self-delusion but a vital avenue for honesty and critique. If truth is not absolute, then we must be honest about our own perspectives and biases and not simply hide behind the veil of objectivity. Yet, equally important, is that such truth requires constant critique. Absolute truth rebuffs attempts to be corrected; relative truth begs for the corrective of critical dialogue.

Though in a culture seemingly enamored with "truthiness," I would hope that we would not settle for the facile logic of opinion and delusion and yearn for the difficult task of crafting truth in our midst.

The Family Plot?

2007-02-27T16:21:00.000-05:00

A great deal of media and scholarly attention has recently focused on the purported discovery of the family burial plot of, among others, Jesus, his wife, and their child. The details of the evidence are easily found via media sites and blogs but still slowly emerging. The key arguments include the interpretation of the inscriptions on the ossuaries found within the cave and statistical analysis of the probability that this collection of names is anything but a coincidence.

Like any finding that too easily solves a pernicious problem or too quickly refutes a long-standing consensus, I am skeptical. This all seems just a bit too tidy. However, I am more concerned with the wider implications of this announcement and its reception amongst scholars and the media.

Curiously, some who regaled the James ossuary as evidence of Jesus' historicity are skeptical of the documentary. I wonder if the faithful are far too anxious to find historical validation for their beliefs, the cynic too keen to unearth damning evidence. In my mind, this is where serious critical scholarship can play a vital role. With the scope of centuries of scholarship in mind, such sensational findings are viewed within a broader perspective.

Ultimately, this case can lead to a critical question. Does "public scholarship" have to play by the rules of modern media? Do new academic findings incorporate some spectacular or provocative edge to gain a hearing in the noisy din of 24 hour news cycles? Is the fray of cable news, blogs, and talk radio the proper venue for academic dialogue? Scholarship done well proceeds with caution and caveats, for higher education is a continuing reminder that many thinkers have preceeded us, that we stand in the wake of many scholars who have both prophetically incisive, disastrously flawed, and everything in between.

The Ethics of Conversation: A Critical Self-Assessment

2006-10-30T10:41:00.000-05:00

No cultural activity may be more fundamental to our humanity than conversation. Conversation is far more than the simple exchange of words. That is, conversation is far more than the sounds created by our mouths which then cause our ear drums to vibrate. Instead, conversation is the encounter of human thoughts and experiences; without conversation, can we even call ourselves human?

Nevertheless, the nature of conversation necessarily makes it a dangerous activity. Words can too easily become verbal daggers. Even if conversation remains productive and positive, conversation still poses a threat, for true conversation makes both sides uniquely vulnerable. Words are alluring, seductive. Words can convince us to turn from the error of our ways. Words can cause us to question everything we know. Truly, conversation is dangerous, for it ultimately puts a mirror before us and asks, “Why?” Why do you believe? How do you know?

In light of the spiritual and personal jeopardy that we face in earnest conversation, what are our responsibilities to one another? How can we care for someone who has exposed her mind and heart to us? I have become convinced that our sacred duty in conversation is a humble, truthful and open disposition. If we enter into conversation unwilling to be changed, we are practitioners of intellectual and theological arrogance, not the productive and potentially sacred encounter of humans. If we enter into conversation willing simply to agree with our partner in dialogue or unwilling to share our views will full conviction, we deprive her of our own sincerity and practice a cheap relativism. If we enter into conversation as a battle of wits, we deprive one another a chance to know another person deeply and thus practice a sophistry that values rhetorical victory over human contact.

Conversation can humanize and dehumanize, uplift us and drag us to the cultural dregs. My prayer is that we choose the former for the sake of God’s kingdom and reject the latter as an outmoded remnant of a sinful perspective that treasures being correct over being fully human.

Prelims continue

2006-10-18T12:43:00.000-05:00

I am right in the midst of my second comprehensive exam. I have one week to write a full exegetical treatment on Paul's speech at the Areopagus in Acts.

Looks like fun, doesn't it?

Forgiveness, grace, mercy

2006-10-14T15:33:00.000-05:00

For too many of us, the Amish are an exotic specimen on the American landscape, a curious group of people in period costumes with antiquated practices and an irrational fear of modernity. The recent shootings in Nickle Mines, Pennsylvania and the reactions of the Amish community there ought to bring an end to such caricatures.

School shootings in the 90s were a staple of the 24-hour news networks. They provided unending fodder for pundits and so-called cultural commentators to lament the end of western civilization. They inspired see-through backpacks, the commercial lionizing of victims in books and movies, the condemnation of various social ills without a concomitant concern for the deeper causes behind such unspeakable violence. It was video games or Marilyn Manson or the lack of prayer in schools. The various school shootings this country experienced in the 90s led us to be afraid, to point accusatory fingers. More than anything, though, those school shootings did not force us to look within ourselves and our own culture--a culture of violence and fear populated with guns both real and digital, a culture too concerned with possession and too little concerned with belonging.

Contrast these sundry reactions to that of the Amish community in Nickle Mines. They buried their dead children in simplicity and silence. They tore down the now tarnished schoolhouse so as to create a living pasture as a memorial of those girls' lives. They accepted the aid of their neighbors for to reject the outside world would be to reject God's own grace.

Most shocking to us, even those of us who claim to be followers of Christ, they reached out to the perpetrator of this crime and his grieving family. Their public forgiveness was pure, lacking even a subtle, periphrastic condemnation of such a seeming monster. Recently, the man's family thanked the Amish community for their "forgiveness, grace, and mercy."

To a Christian, no other words from our neighbors should be as sweet. Not "successful." Not "nice." Not "enlightened." Not "dogmatic." Not "moral." Not even "Christian." In the end, "forgiveness, grace, and mercy" are the marks of Christ himself, the marks towards which we ourselves should strive.

The faithfulness and piety of the Amish should put us to shame. May I suggest that instead of a roadside oddity, this Amish community is a faithful remnant of true believers within a country in which most of us have forgotten the path Christ led.

Ehrman redux

2006-09-26T16:23:00.000-05:00

Though this site may begin to resemble an Ehrman fan site, I want to alert you all to the transcript of a debate on the resurrection between William Craig and Bart Ehrman. I skimmed quickly the 39 page document, and I think I can summarize the two sides briefly. Craig represents a traditional defense of Christian orthodoxy with the added methodological sophistication of historical criticism; that is, he uses the tools of history to assert the probability that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Ehrman, on the other hand, is a historian through and through. Because bodily resurrections are not observable phenomena, it is not within the realm of the historian to make this assessment. In other words, no one can prove historically that the resurrection occurred because, by the rules of history, resurrection is utterly impossible. It has never happened; a historian can never validate such a claim. Thus, it is far more likely that the resurrection did not occur.

Naturally, these are serious questions for us to ask. The resurrection is the center of our faith and the guarantee of our very lives. I wonder, however, if both Craig and Ehrman are talking past each other. Both Craig and Ehrman are debating the possibility of the resurrection by the rules of historiography, rules that do not hold an epistemological privilege. That is, history is not the only way for us to know or learn something. Theology plays by different rules than history does. In theology, there is no reason to discount the resurrection; in history, I agree with Ehrman that we cannot prove the resurrection. We confuse ourselves when we use historical inquiry to make a theological claim or vice versa.

So, the question remains whether the resurrection actually happened; I think this debate demonstrates that your answer depends on what hat you are wearing when you answer. Are you a historian? Are you a theologian? Are you both?

Ehrman interview

2006-09-25T14:37:00.000-05:00

There is a short but surprisingly full interview of textual critic Bart Ehrman over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog. Ehrman has made quite a name for himself by becoming a vital scholarly figure within the academy but also a popular write introducing the "recondite" practice of text criticism to the masses. Who would have known that the collation of manuscripts and the various rules of textual criticism could be packaged for a popular audience?

I have been following this particular blog for a few weeks and it is no stretch to say that the authors' of the blog are more conservative than Ehrman is. Thus, some of the questions posed include a not so implicit critique of Ehrman's work; in a show of professional grace, Ehrman handles these with humor and respect. His responses invite further conversation rather than polemical ripostes.

Here's the rub with the field of textual criticism; we have an overwhelming number of Greek manuscripts of the NT. No two are exactly alike so that there are literally thousands of differences among these texts. An overwhelming majority of these differences are inconsequential, but there are a handful of significant text critical problems: the longer ending of Mark, the pericope of the woman accused of adultery in John, the trinitarian formula in 1 John, etc. These phenomena cannot help but impinge upon our theology of scripture. What can we confess to be scriptural attributes in light of this situation? In what sense are these manuscripts "the word of God?"

In other words, does it matter that our scriptures are not securely bound between two leather covers but are scattered on fragmentary pieces of papyrus?

Blessed are the poor . . . and the middle class?

2006-09-14T18:27:00.000-05:00

How often can both ends of the Christian religious spectrum speak in one voice against a particular theological aberration? How often do they agree on anything? The two sides cannot agree on numerous ethical issues or even which political party coheres most closely with the Christian vision. Contention though gives way to singular agreement when it comes to the issue of the so-called prosperity gospel. From right wing to left, you can find voices spanning this frequently contentious spectrum denouncing the wedding of Christian theology and American materialism.

Time this week chronicles the rise of the prosperity gospel under the influence of preachers like New York Times best-selling author Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, and Atlanta's own Creflo Dollar. Watch most televangelists but for a minute, and you will soon here that God wants you to be wealthy, that poverty is a symptom of a sinful life, that if you just have enough faith, you too will live the American dream. After all, Jesus was rich himself. Haven't you heard? In the gospels, Jesus preaches to crowds in his home, ergo he must have had a large home. It is such exegetical gymnastics that propel our materialist desires to hope that God wants to give us that which we most desire in our culture: prosperity.

I am sympathetic to such a hope. Though we as Americans generally have all we need, we live in a culture in which we never have enough, in which we reach for just a bit more of an American dream communicated to us by a culture that keeps us constantly hungry for more. Our culture demands very little from us yet promises more than we can imagine. This pernicious imbalance motivates our feckless search for a panacea that will cure all our ills. Unfortunately, this search tries to remediate the symptoms of our cultural illness not their sources.

I am sympathetic to the hope that God will satisfy our deepest desires, but I cringe when theology is manipulated to satisfy our most trivial desires. If the Christian faith does not propel us to seek the good of others, even to sacrifice our own selves for those in need, then Christ died in vain. If the Christian faith simply acquiesces to this culture's infirmities, then we remain unchallenged; in such a faith, there is no need for conversion, for we crowd out God and stand arrogantly at the center of the universe.

A final thought on 9.11

2006-09-11T22:44:00.000-05:00

I think that the anger many of us felt after 9.11 is utterly natural; the question is whether it is ethical and in line with the teachings of Christ. This is exactly where the beatitudes become so difficult to live out. I have been struck recently by the admonition to love and pray for your enemy; to read it at face value to me seems to miss the point. We could read this text and believes it means that those who oppose us are also deserving of our prayers and love. But I wonder whether the message is more radical than that; perhaps Jesus is teaching us that in him there are no enemies, that by definition those for whom we pray, those whom we love cannot be our enemies.

To be honest, I have been quite troubled by assessments of Islam that suggest that the basic orientation of the religion itself is at least partly responsible for the conflicts in which we now found ourselves. I find this troubling because the same accusations could easily be made of the Christian faith on two levels.

First at the level of text, the Koran does contain suras which label infidels as deserving of death; the same, however, is true of our scriptures. Joshua tells us that it was God's command that Israel put all whom they conquered and their possessions to the flame. Revelation envisions a world in which God inflicts pain, suffering, and death upon the world. To be sure, we no longer read texts like Joshua and simply nod our heads in agreement; we have found ways to read these texts which do not endorse genocide. But their presence within the canon are unquestionable.

Second at the level of history, one could argue that Islam has recently produced a great deal of bloodshed and violence. Once again, this is something we share with Islam. The list of atrocities is not new to us. To be sure, we no longer claim these horrific acts as acts of Christian piety, but they were at the time.

We ought to remember also that Islam was not always a supposed harbinger of terrorism. In fact, Islam was a fount of civilization. Were it not for Islam, Aristotle would have been lost to us, and we may never have stumbled upon the number zero; these are part of the cultural heritage of Islam. Even more, for ages it was far safer to be a Christian or a Jew living inside a Muslim empire than a Muslim or Jew living in the emerging Christian empires of the West.

In these ways, we are not all that different from Islam; our respective heritages are both uplifting and tragic. To be sure, our views of the world are not simply interchangeable, but we share a common legacy of brokenness, of violent interpretations of holy writ.

New ways of reading scripture have saved us from our own sinful need to rule over the other, yet we still struggle for an authentic and faithful reading of scripture. My hope for Islam is that the same can be true for all those who worship Allah, that with joined voices we can all declare that our faiths are not oriented around violence but by the love of God.

On 9.11

2006-09-11T07:10:00.000-05:00

Reflecting on that seemingly normal Tuesday morning brings back a flurry of emotion. I remember that I only woke up because someone knocked on our door, perhaps as a way of alerting everyone to the tragic events of the day. I woke up in time to see the second plane crash into the WTC. It was Holley's first day at Rutgers University, and she was far closer to the events. My fear was only sharpened when local news reports announced the reported shutdown of the NJ Turnpike and the rail lines.

Fear was the air we breathed that day. Reports of "missing" planes suggested that the attacks on the WTC were but a first salvo. What would be next? Holley later shared with me that as she waited for her train back to Princeton, a low-flying jet sent people scurrying and screaming for shelter. One day earlier "shelter" was barely a part of our vocabulary.

Fear was the air we breathed that day, and, when we finally exhaled, when we finally knew it was over, we breathed out anger. I shouldn't speak for others; I breathed anger in a wild effort to suppress my fear that the world was being turned upside down around me.

Pride of country was stirred within me as was fear of the other. Bullhorn declarations, press conferences, and speeches comforted me and braced me for my righteous anger to be satisfied. Why, oh why, did I not turn to my faith? I believed in America that day, not the God of Jacob.

"Blessed are the peacemakers." No, on that day, I believed, "God bless America."

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." No, on that day, my enemies were not worthy of God's care.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." No, on that day, I loved my own sense of security, no matter what the cost.

On that day, I thought of myself. The world had stopped turning. Yet Alan Jackson was only half right; the world only seemed to have stopped turning. But now as I reflect I think of how self-centered my reaction was. For many of our sisters and brothers around the world, terror is the order of the day; terror is the daily bread of many. Terror is not an outside force invading our world; terror is our own creation, a virus we inflict upon one another.

I wish I had reacted differently on that otherwise beautiful Tuesday morning. I wish I had opted for love, for peace, for compassion and forgiveness. I wish the world had not appeared so black and white that day; I wish gray would have prevailed until my fear, shock, and grief could subside.

I mourn those who lost their lives that day, but I also mourn how that day exposed my own lack of faith. May God grant us all a stronger faith in those moments when we flee from faith yet need it most.

Survival of the races

2006-08-29T10:45:00.000-05:00

Perhaps it is because I have been a Survivor aficionado for the last few years, but I am entirely untroubled by the recent news that the tribes on the show will be divided by race/ethnicity. In fact, I was always far more troubled by the dearth of minorities usually in the game. I can understand if people are concerned that the show will magnify stereotypes and simply reinforce the nation's racial strife; unfortunately, "reality television" has too frequently banked on such divisiveness in order to make "good television."

However, the outrage seems misplaced to me, for it seems to deny that such divisions are not cultural realities in our country. To be sure, it would be swell to have one happy tribe in which all related to one another as humans and not as ethnic cardboard cutouts; it would be magnificent for backstabbing to be a color-blind endeavor. It would be nice, but it would only be a further instance of "reality" TV's plastic resemblance to real life.

Reflecting on Katrina

2006-08-28T08:37:00.000-05:00

This week will probably play host to a number of Katrina retrospectives. One particular documentary, Spike Lee's When the Levees Broke, has already started stirring the pot of controversy. While much of the press coverage on the film has been even-handed, there have been so rumbling reservations about once again asking who is to blame for the bungled efforts to protect and help the people of New Orleans and southern Mississippi. Especially galling to some have been the widespread accusations of racism and even conspiracy in the failings of the levees and their destructive aftermath.

The problem on both fringes of the political spectrum is that problems in society are too often wrapped into these wide conspiracy theories. While some on the left imagine a dark government conspiracy behind 9/11, some Christians on the right see themselves as oppressed people, a people who will be plucked out of this world with the return of Jesus. The rhetoric on both sides maddeningly refuses to look at the very real problems which exist in our society.

I think Katrina exposed such a sad reality. Whether black or white, if you are poor, old, or disabled, your voice will only rarely be heard. If you can't help yourself escape death, many, if not most, of your neighbors will not help you. To me, it is a national tragedy that so much time elapsed between the hurricane and help arriving in the area. Was it a conspiracy? No. Was it racist? Perhaps, in that our political and economic systems have not been succesful in creating equal opportunity for all.

Unfortunate also is that all the conspiracy talk keeps us from seeing a rather obvious point. People who reject the notion that the government blew up the levees, it seems to me, believe so because they cannot imagine that our government would do such a thing, that our government as our representatives would not commit crimes against our own people. Unfortunately, levees were apparently blown up in 1927 and there have been other instances in which your race or ethnicity could put you at the end of dehumanizing treatment by the government.

Unfortunately, we miss a crucial question. Is our government still capable of such criminal action? Actually, there is a far better question to ask: do we think that we ourselves are not capable of such criminal neglect? That is the question we should be asking now, not who conspired to make for the worst natural disaster this nation has seen. The truth is that we all conspire when we let our neighbors suffer.

...but we don't torture...

2006-08-10T14:47:00.000-05:00

Despite the denials of the administration and overwhelming evidence against these very denials, the current administration is advocating that certain individuals be exempt from prosecution for war crimes. Apparently, we do not torture but want immunity from charges. To me, this is the clearest evidence that this administration has lost its moral compass and the respect of the rest of the world. It may not be fair, but as the supposed beacon of freedom and justice in the world, we are held to a higher standard than any other country. Our goal should be to exceed our moral requirements, not find ways to cut corners and hide our crimes. It is a shameful time to be an American...

CT and the Nation

2006-08-10T14:12:00.000-05:00

The victory of Ned Lamont over Joseph Liebermann on Tuesday is not a political weathervane. It is a simple case of an incumbent losing support at his grassroots. Was Lamont aided by outside help and money? To be sure but both Republicans and Democrats mourn or celebrate this result at their political peril. The Republicans have for weeks been eulogizing the Democratic Party if it were to oust one of their more centrist senators. They argue that this is a sign of a party lurching to the left and losing the pulse of the country. However, what if the rest of the country concurs in November with Liebermann's constituents?

On the other side, some Democrats may be glad to be rid of the image and symbolism of the President kissings Liebermann on the cheek at the state of the union. Nevertheless, this country will soon grow weary of the strict partisanship of blue and red states, if it has not done so already. For the Democratic party to succeed, it must be careful to court the political center where people are worried about Iraq but unwilling to leave it in chaos, where people do not want to leave massive deficits as an inheritance to their children but are also concerned about their take-home pay. The Democratic party must voice a true alternative to Republican incumbency; the party of opposition must become the party of positive change.

The results of the midterm election are still up in the air, no matter who will represent the Democratic party in CT; hopefully, we as voters will stand up and speak in November.

War in the Holy Lands

2006-08-10T13:59:00.000-05:00

The month-long crisis in the Middle East has brought into sharp relief the central problems of contemporary international politics. In my mind, fault lies on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanon border. Lebanon's democratically-elected government has done too little militarily to quash a rising militia in its midst; it seems evident that public disavowals of Hizbullah's practices and tactics clash with an unwillingness to stop the militia's ability to strike Israel.

On the other side, I wonder whether Israel has too easily resorted to military might. If there is such a thing as a "war on terrorism," then victory is not measured by the count of bodybags but by the far more subtle influence of ideological persuasion. Especially in this case, violence perpetuates violence; many of the Israeli military strikes are only fostering the very movement they are trying to quell. The so-called "war on terrorism" is a struggle of ideas, not a battle of steel, gunpowder, and military technologies.

I am hesitant even to utilize the terminology of "war on terrorism" because recently it has simply become shorthand for any struggle we have with a perceived enemy. The term only obfuscates the reasons for battle and the players involved. What have Hizbullah, Hamas, Iraqi insurgents, and Taliban irredentists have in common save their loathing of the western world? Their tactics, ideologies, and grievances are not one and the same.

Let me be clear; I am not an apologist for those who would use crude, random violence in the public square. I am not a supporter of IEDs and suicide bombings; each of these are clear violations of our common humanity. Then again, I am unwilling simply to sweep away human deaths as mere "collateral damage."

These are conflicts which require introspection as well as a clear voice of justice. We cannot cower in an isolationist pose and bemoan a relativist dystopia in which all opinions and ideologies are mere constructions unassailable by critique. There are those who are wrong, dead wrong in these conflicts. I hope, however, that we are not so quick to indict only those who oppose our political will.

Christian Responses to Immigration

2006-07-31T21:34:00.000-05:00

This weekend I have been attending the summer workshop of the Hispanic Theological Initiative during which a series of four short lectures were given on the question of immigration. Naturally, the responses were unflinching in their support of open borders and the compassionate treatment of undocumented individuals. At base, the presentations together argued that a Christian response to migrants cannot erect a wall on their path to sustenance. By confession, the church holds a significant responsibility to care for the pilgrim. Whether someone is seeking spiritual enlightenment or the basic necessities of life, the church must be committed to their well-being.

Most haunting was a pregnant question posed by Orlando Espín, professor of popular Catholicism and Latina/o theology at the University of San Diego. Legislation passed by the House but not the Senate would have criminalized any effort to aid undocumented migrants in any way. In light of this he asked, "If Congress made helping your neighbor illegal, how many of us would be acquitted due to lack of evidence?"

Like a great Shakesperean conclusion...

2006-06-27T18:07:00.000-05:00

...JK Rowling has revealed that two characters will meet their demise in the seventh and final installment of the Harry Potter series. Any thoughts or theories?

My initial guess cannot involve Harry, for I think that the mantra of "The Boy who Lived" would be heavily contradicted if he died, especially if he did so at the hands of Voldermort. Other than that, I'm not entirely sure. If I get struck by any inspiration, I will let you know.

Recent {Emergent} Christian Miscellany

2006-06-27T16:39:00.000-05:00

Those rumblings you hear across the eclcesial spectrum in this country are the voices of the emergent conversation, a movement of believers disenchanted with the staid worship and theology of contemporary Christianity. Its leading voices--Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, et al.--have been lightning rods for both adoration by their followers and censure by their detractors.

My good friend Jake Myers, Coordinator for Missional Community at Wieuca Road Baptist Church, has entered this fray with both feet. ABP reported on a seminar he led at the recent CBF General Assembly. Entitled "Beer, Candles, & Kierkegaard," Jake's seminar was extremely well-attended, and I'm certain was conducted with all the wit, intelligence, and compassion Jake shows in his everyday life. You heard it here first: this is not the last you will hear of Jake Myers...

...which brings me to the second piece of Christian miscellany, again related to the emergent conversation. One could argue about what kind of effect blogs have on our mode of communication. Some would argue that blogs embolden individuals to express their views with far more vitriole than ordinary conversation; others might suggest that blogs simply mirror our ordinary conversation. In either case, a blog entry entitled "Is Tony Jones Even a Christian?" is troubling.

Those who seek to change the church at its very core will be the object of scorn and excommunicative diatribes. When an individual's faith becomes the stuff of public discourse, then we have lost a crucial sense of perspective. It is the oldest trick in the book to demonize your opponent instead of grappling with the substance of their argument. The author of the blog presumes that "gnostic mysticism" and "catholic" forms of spirituality are outside the scope of the Christian faith. Clearly, this writer has bought into the myth that the church is a homogenous body across time and space, one which is characterized by purity of thought and practice. The author of this blog excludes by definition a church which breaks the antiseptic bubble of propriety and narrow dogma...

...which brings us to the third piece of Christian misccellany. Al Mohler has voiced his displeasure that a Christian ministry committed to sharing the gospel in the pornographic industry chose to buy booth space at an adult entertainment expo. Citing the seedy surroundings, Mohler determines that this is no place for professing Christians to make their presence felt; Mohler explains, "There is a difference between talking to a prostitute about the Gospel and entering a brothel -- much less buying a booth."

A massive Christian hypocrisy is clear here. To be sure, the billions of dollars Americans spend on pornography is not a phenomenon isolated to the lecherous non-believer; likely, Christians propel the nation's thirst for visual sexual gratification at equal measure. Simply asking for Christians to detach themselves publically from the industry only deepens the hypocrisy. It seems to me a far from Christ-like act is to establish a prophetic presence even in the seemingly seediest corners of our culture. After all, Christ met the most detested of sinners in their context, whether it was their homes or an isolated water well.

Recently, Holley became involved in a ministry for strippers. In groups, women volunteers go to strip clubs with gift baskets and try to form relationships with the women working there. At times, they might even pay women to sit down and talk with them during their performances. I wonder whether Mohler would direct the same criticism to such an incarnational presence. In my mind, there is no more Christian act than to descend into those undesirable depths which society and religion deem wholly reprobate in order the shine the light of the gospel with love, compassion, and empathy.

Who needs Myers-Briggs...

2006-06-21T09:32:00.000-05:00

...when you have online personality tests . . .

Your results:
You are Superman

Superman		70%
The Flash		65%
Spider-Man		60%
Green Lantern		60%
Iron Man		55%
Supergirl		48%
Hulk		40%
Batman		40%
Robin		35%
Wonder Woman		33%
Catwoman		30%

You are mild-mannered, good,
strong and you love to help others.

Click here to take the Superhero Personality Test

Colbert . . . redux!

2006-06-20T22:31:00.000-05:00

While I'm thinking about it, I loved this interview Colbert conducted with Georgia's own congressman Westmoreland. Said representative sponsored a bill supporting the public display of the ten commandments. Only one problem...

Celebrity scholarship . . . redux!

2006-06-20T22:17:00.000-05:00

Bart Ehrman is the guest tonight on The Colbert Report. I commented earlier on the function of popular scholarship and will report after watching the show on the DVR tomorrow. Even more than Jon Stewart's interview, I am interested to see how the Colbert persona interacts with a religious scholar; Colbert's comedic gift shines most when he confronts religion. Should be an interesting interview...

Good Night, and Good Luck . . . redux

2006-06-20T20:24:00.000-05:00

To be sure, it is no chronological accident that George Clooney wrote, directed, and performed in Good Night, and Good Luck last year. The movie arrived at a time when a nation is divided as much by differences of opinion as by the internecine discursive battles which spew daily out of the mouths of politicians and pundits. In a political milieu in which "you are either with us or against us," partisans will daily label their opponents as enemies of America. The ad hominem attack wears the facade of argument.

Nonetheless, dissent and disagreement are not the seeds of this nation's destruction but the prerequisite ingredients for the furthering and flowering of democracy. Voicing a contrary opinion is not a subversive alliance with the enemy but a profound commitment to the fundamentals of the American experiment. Exposing our own shortcomings and even crimes is not a salve for the enemy but a necessary and healthy acknowledgment that a democratic government does not liberate us from our sinful nature; polity does not inoculate us from embracing the tactics of our enemies for the sake of expediency.

America's burden then is fundamentally unfair. If we are to proclaim our values, we must embody them, even when their costs are exorbitantly, even prohibitively, high. If we do not abide by our values when the stakes are high, then they are the worthless rhetorical flourishes of sophistry.

Above all else, however, our leaders must be held accountable for their actions. Our leaders must earn our trust beyond the shadow of any doubt. Our leaders must never sacrifice the hard road of our values for the expediency of shallow victories. In other words, convincing the world to embrace democratic values happens not on the deck of an aircraft carrier while declaring a premature victory or in the snuffing of an enemy's life boldly proclaimed with graphic pictures of a corpse. That intellectual battle is won in a productive, difficult discourse in which we are all held the highest standard.

See the film; it is a beautifully crafted piece of art. Yet, more importantly, it is an incisive critique of our own times. The film, however, is not interested in assigning a villainous role to a particular cross-section of our population. It is not conservatives or liberals, the media or politics which are at the film's crosshairs; instead, Good Night, and Good Luck indicts us all for our silence, for our cynical appeal to the rhetoric of division, no matter our political leanings.

In relation to the previous post...

2006-06-05T22:30:00.000-05:00

...check out this editorial cartoon.

A Cynical Political Feint

2006-06-03T16:02:00.000-05:00

In my mind, it was no accident that so many states had the issue of gay marriage on the same ballot on which voters would be picking the president in 2004. I was cynically suspicious that Republican strategists opted for calculated scare mongering in order to draw the base to the voting booth. In a world of terrorism, huge budgets, educational deficiencies, and debilitating war, it was the specter of gay marriage that drew conservative Christians to vote for their political messiah, an individual who would construct a Supreme Court that would toe the party--and more importantly, religious--line.

I was suspicious, but now I am absolutely certain that my cynical instincts were accurate. Today, George Bush urged congress to pass an amendemnt to the constitution banning gay marriage. A clear appeal to the conservative Christians in this country who could save a Republican majority this fall, I would predict that politicians looking to pander to the right will stress the need for the amendment and after the elections will let it fall by the wayside.

In much the same way, I wonder whether the immigration debate is also a calculated grab for votes. Claiming the lessons of 9/11 as an impetus for tightening border controls is simply a ploy.

It is saddening to me that Christians could be so easily duped and not see through vapid political rhetoric meant to inflame their passions, manipulate their prejudices. Even more, the same political rhetoric is recycled during each political cycle. Equally saddening is the amount of attention paid to the sanctity of marriage and the "threat" homosexuals pose to marriage. Even cynicism does not even seem to be a suffiicent response.

To watch or not to watch

2006-05-22T13:38:00.000-05:00

What better reason to post once again than to join the chorus of opinion on The DaVinci Code. I saw the film last night, and I think I tend to agree with Roger Ebert that Ron Howard is a far better director than Dan Brown is a novelist. Although not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, I found it entertaining though I found myself laughing outloud several times at how preposterous some of the film's claims are. Ultimately, however, I am not a film critic; I'll leave the verdict of the film's quality to someone else. But I would like to say a bit about the theological and historical implications of the film.

First, let's be clear that Dan Brown is not a very good historian. His construal of the Council of Nicaea as the historical point at which Christ's divinity was concocted and when the canon was closed is simply inaccurate. From the very first, some Christians confessed that Christ was divine. Notice that I say some. There were certainly others who would claim to be true Christians who were confounded as to how Jesus could be divine and not break the bounds of strict monotheism. Even more, there were Christians who argued that Christ was only divine, that Jesus could not have possibly been even the slightest bit human. Early Christianity was a diverse mix. To argue then that Constantine's call of the council concocted Christ's divinity is less than half right. Certainly, before Constantine, there was not a single individual or institution which could enforce orthodoxy with the necessary political might; in fact, it took several decades and other Christian emperors to establish a veritably unquestioned orthodoxy in the Christian West. In other words, what Nicaea did is to seal a particular strand of Christianity as authoritative and orthodox.

Even more preposterous is Brown's fictive claim that the four gospels were selected and other dismissed because the four canonical works buttressed Christ's divinity. The fourfold gospel was one of the earliest parts of the NT canon to come together; other gospels found in the last century mostly in the sands of Egypt were likely to be 3rd to 4th century documents. Although they introduce us to how other early followers of Christ construed their faith, they are not as close to the events of Jesus' life as the four we have in the bible today. Yes, the decision to limit the orthodox canons to four was a human decision, but it was not the product of a conspiracy to buttress Christ's divinity.

Finally, we should consider Brown's implicit claim that pre-Nicaean Christianity was far more feminist in its orbit. The Gnostic Gospels prove otherwise, and we can turn to numerous examples in the gospels of Luke and John where we find women in active roles in the ministry of Christ. Nevertheless, it is clear that the church has historically been an agent of female oppression and the marginalization of female sexuality; this is a significant scar on the church's history.

Ultimately, does this all mean that the Christian faith is a sham, an accident of history? If the faith was based solely on what could be proven historically, then yes, but our faith rests on far more than history. Brown implicitly suggests that there are only two alternatives. Either the bible and Jesus himself plopped down from heaven among us, or the Christian faith itself is solely the product of a malicious conspiracy to hold power over the world. Either the church is solely a divine gift or a historically produced and flawed artifice. I would suggest that either extreme falls in the camp of insipid fundamentalism.

The Christian faith is far more dynamic than this binary picture. In our faith, the perfection of divinity deigns to find flesh in human frailty. It is this paradox that continues today. The church has failed in its mission more times than we can count, and it has been embarrassingly the arm of violence and oppression. Yet the church has also inspired and engendered the heights of human achievement. Christians have struggled for justice and peace, have left us with objects of art which inspire us still, have lived seemingly ordinary lives but touched their neighbors with the grace of Christ. It is this living paradox in which we as Christians live.

Today, it has become the fashion to live on either side of this facile binary. Conservative fundamentalists deny the sins of Christianity or attribute them to individuals who were not true believers; liberal fundamentalists deny the beauty and graceful posture of the faith. I pray that the vast majority of believers who find themselves between these two extremes will live out their faith and confess our crimes and thus demonstrate the fallaciousness of both fundamentalisms.

Hall of Fame Teachers in My Academic Life, Part 1

2006-03-15T13:44:00.000-05:00

Dr. Thomas Dowdy passed away last Sunday evening; he had battled brain cancer for several years.

The news asked me to reflect on those teachers that had shaped my life; Dr. Dowdy was certainly amongst that small group. Initially though, I should clarify that those professors who impacted my life the most were not those who provided me with the most information or even that information upon which I draw most often. The best teachers were not necessarily those who provided the easiest route to an A or made that process incredibly arduous. In fact, the contributions of the best teachers in my life are like wine in that their insights have to age before I appreciate their true flavor.

Dr. Dowdy deserves a place on this list. Admittedly, the practice of strict grade curving and testing us on the minutiae of picture captions are not ones I intend to emulate in my own teaching. However, he forced me to be excellent in my thinking and writing. He helped me understand for the first time that reality was but a social construction. In light of this, however, we were not free to make our way through the world thoughtlessly. That the world was constructed by us required and demanded our best, for we were ultimately responsible for what we made of this world. Even more important to my intellectual mindset, he taught me the central role languages plays in this construction. When I am squinting my eyes seeking to parse a Greek verb, I can remember that language matters.

Most subtly, however, Dr. Dowdy believed in me in a sincere way. Instead of the off-hand compliment, he pointed out my gifts but encouraged me to sharpen them even farther.

For all these things, I thank Dr. Dowdy and pray for peace in his family. I know that he is in peace even now.

My plan is to make this an ongoing feature of this blog; feel free to laugh at my blog ambition at this point. Nevertheless, I am going to focus on teachers through college; I think seminary and graduate school are still too close to assess them properly. Some of the teachers will include Carolyn Cole, Richard Luckert, Kevin Mays, Warren McWilliams and others. More forthcoming...

Celebrity scholarship

2006-03-15T11:19:00.000-05:00

Bart Ehrman is all over various media outlets recently. The author of Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman's work was recently profiled in the Washington Post and last night on the Daily Show. It will be replayed 600 times someday, so I would recommend catching it.

Ehrman is a very provocative and well-known scholar in academia. His work on text criticism, though controversial, is imminently influential. If you are an undergraduate student taking NT introduction at a secular college, his textbook is probably in your hands. Most of the time, scholars laboring in the obscure field of text-criticism do not become regulars in the media spotlight; the dusty job of collating ancient manuscripts is not exactly the stuff of late night television or the evening news.

However, what Ehrman has achieved may be telling to the future of the study of religion. In much the same way as Elaine Pagels has done in her work, Ehrman's faith journey is equally the subject of his popular work as is his revelation that text criticism challenges the naive notion that we have the NT as it was in its inception. A recovering fundamentalist, he intertwines his own struggles with the academic insights of text criticism and in doing so enlivens an area of study unknown to many people.

The fact is that there are thousands of NT manuscripts spanning the ages. We have 4th century scraps of papyrus (i.e., ancient paper) and rather intact codices (i.e., bound books) from the 8th century containing the whole of the NT as we know it today. What we do not have are Paul's or Mark's "autographs," those pieces of papyrus which first contained the letter to the Romans or the gospel narratives.

(On an aside, we might even doubt the existence of "an original" text as if the writers sent the final draft to the printer and that was that. The circulation of letters and narratives in early Christianity suggests that editing and sharing was an ongoing process; at what point do we declare a piece of writing original? Think about, for example, the work of Shakespeare as David Parker has suggested in The Living Texts of the Gospel. What would we deem the "original" of any of his plays. They were constantly edited by his own hand and later received the stage notes. At what point is the process of composition complete?)

What we also do not have are manuscripts that agree with one another completely. The majority of the errors are relatively minor: spelling mistakes, skipping lines, switching the order of words. Nevertheless, there are significant divergences which ought to cause us pause.

This is where Ehrman has stepped in and extended a tradition of scholarship that started examining textual variants and asking, "Why?". Instead of envisioning robotic scribes, Ehrman sees the scribes as active interpreters, trying to make sense of cryptic texts; their changes to the text are motivated by concerns for orthodoxy.

While his thesis is not unchallenged, Ehrman may signal with his work a new avenue for the popular distribution of the academy's work. What if we remove the facade of objectivity and admit that the work we do in our offices and libraries is of existential import, not just to people sitting in the pews but to those sleeping in on Sunday mornings? Even more, what if we leave the protective cocoon of scholarship and dare to make our work comprehensible to people outside of the guild?

The sham of "authenticity"

2006-03-12T22:45:00.000-05:00

Why do we assail one another with the false notion of authenticity? I wonder whether the presence of the "other" is what prompts both individuals and communities to defend their sense of self. In light of the political realities of oppression, such reactions are natural in that "authentic" borderlines appear to be a prerequisite for justice. If individuals simply acquiesce to the ideology and demands of the dominant group and assimilate to their demands, then the battle has been lost.

Nevertheless, to argue for authenticity merely buys into the judgments of the majority. If diversity is word, shouldn't authenticity be that against which we strive?

It seems to me that is also a problem amongst Christians who define themselves over against who they are not. So-called "authentic Christianity" is defined within narrow doctrinal, ideological, or ethical concerns. Anyone beyond the pale of such strictures is labeled a heretic, or simply, "one of them."

In our world today, I wonder whether the category of "authenticity" remains viable. Cultures and peoples are commodified by our markets so that "foreign" or "alien" ways of life are domesticated, that is, reduced to the minimal core so that we can all consume some small part of an other's life. Even more, authenticity remains the weapon of the powerful, the apparatus of cultural overseers.

From the coast of Turkey...

2006-01-09T11:09:00.000-05:00

Fortunately, I have yet to catch avian flu and do not plan to do so anytime soon. One of the "joys" of international travel is that hotels tend to have a single channel in English; in this case, BBC News simply repeats the same story over and over again. If it is not avian flu, it is Sharon's illness. So, for those worried out there, remember that Turkey's population is about 75 million. If I catch avian flu, my first response will be to buy a lottery ticket.

We are about halfway through our jaunt through most of Turkey. I actually wrote a blog entry the second day we were in the country only to lose it because of the internet cafe's lame computer.

So far the trip has been incredibly eye-opening. We started in Istanbul and then headed down the coast. We visited the presumed location of Troy and then moved to Alexander Troas and Assos. Assos was particularly striking as its ruins lie on a high hill overlooking the Aegean with the island of Lesbos looming in the horizon. Simply beautiful. We then visited Pergamum, Ephesus, Priene, Miletus, and Didyma. I am struck repeatedly by the magnitude of these ruins and straining to imagine what they must have looked like in the midst of a bustling ancient city.

A particularly striking event occured on the way to Ephesus when we stopped at the Virgin Mary's House, purported to be the home in which Mary spent the last years of life on earth. When we arrived, we were told that a Korean group of Catholics had received special permission to hold mass in the tiny building but that we could still peak in and get a sense of the place. This was a true blessing in disguise. The service was familiar enough from life in the church to know what was happening, broadly speaking; yet, because everything was uttered in a tongue foreign to my ear, there was a sense of mystery in the air. I complained in a previous blog that tourism can drain the sacrality of a place. It is amazing how the simple presence of devoted people could convert that small place from a touristic opportunity to gawk and take pictures into a sacred space.

More forthcoming in the next few days or so....

Checking the continents off the list....

2006-01-02T05:57:00.000-05:00

Alas, no excuses will be forthcoming for my two-month hiatus. Those who knew about Sunday night travails throughout the semester may understand my absence.

However, I am now quite rested and refreshed. This blog emerges from Antwerp, Belgium in my parent's place. These northern European countries have fantastic food, joyful people, beautiful architecture, but just a glimmer of sunlight. Every morning I wake up feeling that dawn is barely breaking, but my mom announces joyfully that we have a sunny day in Belgium. I guess perspective really does matter.

Holley and I spent the holidays with my parents, my sister, and her bf. I think something might be brewing between them, but I digress. We mastered jet lag this time around and enjoyed walking around Belgium for a few days including Brugge and here in Antwerp.

My parents, Holley, and I then headed to Rome. What a city! I remember how struck I was with the majesty and grandeur of Paris, how statues and reliefs seem to transpose a modern city into a living relic of the past. However, I was not ready for the scale and beauty of Rome's traversing of the chronological gap between the ancient and modern worlds. The Colosseum truly earns its names as it rises in the middle of this bustling city; I found that I could almost hear the crowds two thousand years ago reveling in the carnivalesque spectacle its arena hosted. The Forum was particularly striking to me. From the Arch of Titus celebrating the destruction of Jerusalem to the lingering columns of the Temple of Saturn, the Forum is a prime location for taking a step into the past. The opulence of the Vatican was simply breath-taking; unfortunately, the crowds and constant talk zapped much of the sacredness of the place. I think that we often tend to forget that though we are traveling as tourists, the places we visit are not solely venues for our entertainment or for our odd attempts to acquire pictorial proof of our visit. Speaking of which, here are the hundred or so pictures we took! Additional titles and descriptions will be forthcoming.

The rest of our visit was equally dazzling. The food was fantastic and as my sister's bf, David, stated so succinctly, "The wine flowed like wine." Indeed.

I head to Istanbul tomorrow. Somehow, in the last 12 months or so I will have stepped foot on five continents (that is, if you waffle a bit with Costa Rica's continental home). I might need to spend more time at home next year...

The Philly natives . . . so welcoming!

2005-11-17T21:12:00.000-05:00

I flew to Philadelphia this evening for the annual SBL meetings. I just thought it was important to report that the birds in Philly are very welcoming. As I left the train station, a bird promptly dooked on my head. Good times.

In addition, I was an ad on the train for the Fox morning show, and, I kid you not, one of the hosts is named Jennaphr. Yep, that is not misspelled.

I'll try to give some daily reports on the happenings around here, for those biblical studies dorks out there like me. Blessings.

On merit-based admissions in the Ivy League

2005-10-27T09:37:00.000-05:00

I ran across an interesting review of a new book that challenges the myth that Ivy League admissions are propelled solely on the basis of academic merit. A couple of points: (1) We should not be all that surprised that factors beyond academic qualifications go into consideration at our nation's most prestigious schools. After all, our current president--for better or worse--was the benefactor of legacy admissions. (2) I wonder whether these findings will reorient the discussion around affirmative action and the aggressive recruiting and admission of minorities at institutions of higher learning. If we can dispense with the myth that academic qualifications are the sole measure colleges use to assess their applicants, can we then admit that the purposeful creation of a diverse student body can be a pertinent--and even commendable--goal of admissions committees?

Jesus, Live in Rochester, NY!

2005-10-27T09:16:00.000-05:00

I would have thought that Jesus would find a warmer place to initiate his second-coming but alas he chose the frigid tundra of Rochester, NY for his latest appearance. I have still have trouble discerning the Messianic facial features but then again I never was able to see those encrypted images at the mall either!

It remains to me an interesting question how one can discern between "authentic" and "inauthentic" religious experiences. Perhaps, we can discount easily an appearance of the face of Jesus on the bark of a tree or that of Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich. But what about the stories that have imbued Guadalupe with so much power? Are they in the same category for us? Do our modernist perspectives require us to reject the supernatural, the extraordinary, or the downright weird?

Christianity is a faith that leans upon the testimony of eyewitnesses to the resurrection and to its continued power in believers' lives. Pentecost served as a vital intersection of the limits of human and the power of God in a public setting. These recent theophanic iterations force us to face the "foolishness of the gospel" (see 1 Cor 1:18, 21, 23, 25; 2:14; 3:19) once again and to reassess what that means for us today as a people who usually stress reason above all else.

Moore disses Marshall

2005-10-14T09:00:00.000-05:00

The theological attacks continue to emerge from the bastions of SBC "academic" life. Click here to see SBTS's Russell Moore condemn Molly Marshall for daring to question "Christian patriarchy."

Several of Moore's arguments are especially telling and betray the trenchant commitment to ideologies beyond the scope of scripture. First, he is dismayed that Marshall's feminist commitments have led her to advocate calling God "she." That this argument requires no further explanation demonstrates the presumption that God is, in fact, profoundly male in some sense. To presume a primarily male God requires one to ignore instances of feminine imagery used for God (Is 49:15; Lk 15:11-32; see also a list of examples here) and to place women second in the order of creation, for men must be necessarily closer to the image of God if God is Godself primarily male. Such a move reduces the exegetical and theological complexities of Gen 1-2, silencing new reading strategies. Clearly, Moore here is indebted to a patriarchal ideology which is not the necessary outcome of a reading of scripture.

Second is Moore's extraordinarily uncharitable reading of Marshall's advocacy for a deeper appreciation for the Spirit's role in Christian life:

Marshalls theological revisionism is not limited to gender concerns. In a debate with Marshall at the 2003 American Association of Religion (AAR), I expressed concern about the "eclipse of Christ" on the theological left, including in Marshalls writings. Marshall countered that her theology represented instead the "recovery of the Spirit." What is at issue is Marshalls neo-pluralism regarding the doctrine of salvation combined with her panentheistic view of God.

Fortunately, I was actually at this "debate"; it was actually a panel discussion on the future of evangelicalism. If I remember correctly, Marshall noted that Moore now worked from her former office at SBTS though whether he was qualified to sit at her former desk remained in question. That sour grapes may be part of Moore's motivation is hard to say, but what is much clearer is Moore's attempt to wrap Marshall's Christian reflections in a lofty vocabulary which obfuscates her far more nuanced approach.

Moore's strict dogmatism forbids straying from the narrow path of a political ideology imbued with theological power; he notes, "Evangelical feminism is a real and present danger to the church." That he cannot envision the stifling effects of his own narrow ideology only betrays the shortcomings of "Christian patriarchy."

Mohler disses PTS

2005-10-12T10:10:00.000-05:00

In my book, it is never a negative thing when Albert Mohler decides to condemn your attempts to live out the gospel. As noted in the excellent documentary Battle for the Minds, Mohler has a way of testing the theological winds for his own advantage and getting rid of fabulous teachers along the way. Along with the upsurgence of fundamentalist hegemony in the SBC, Mohler has gained a significant voice in the media and in conservative Christian cirles as a voice of the church. It never fails that when Larry King wants to ask someone what "Christians think" about a particular issue, Mohler is on the short list. Needless to say, I do not agree with much of Brother Mohler preaches.

And then I receive an e-mail from my good friend Blake. Mohler apparently stumbled unto the blog of a PTS student entilted Pomomusings and drew a great deal of umbrage at how the BLGT group at PTS is expressing their message of love and grace.

Apparently, gay is not okay with Mohler, but that's not particularly surprising. The question that remains unanswered for most Christians, no matter their stance on homosexuality, is how the church can reverse its historical tendency to exclude and condemn homosexuals. While a proclamation of the gospel that does not call us to repentance is a fictive notion of modern liberalism, in my mind, the empty rhetoric of "hate the sin, love the sinner" has yet to be--and probably never will be--incarnated.

Katrina and Race

2005-10-12T09:32:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine recently asked for my feedback on an e-mail forward he received. In the e-mail, a Rev. Peterson criticizes the African American community for their response to the disaster of Katrina. You can read the e-mail here. Here are my responses to it. For a far more eloquent response to the history behind the response, click here. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

1) Whether we like it or not, there is a distinct line between what a member of a community can say about her own community and what an outsider can say. In a sense, one earns the right to critique by living out the particular experiences of a community and thus understanding deeply both the struggles and successes of the community. This does not guarantee your accuracy as Rev. Peterson demonstrates, but he has, in a sense, earned the right as a member of the community to critique harshly. Nevertheless, I would be extraordinarily cautious in purveying that privilege to others, especially in this country in which the shadow of racism has yet to be lifted. What I'm saying is that were the words written by the Rev uttered by a white person, they would be correctly deemed as racist; his statement is marked by hasty generalizations and a moral superiority that requires rejection. Yet, in a sense, he has the right to be that wrong! Outsiders do not. I would argue that forwarding the e-mail is a racist move in that it advocates the racist generalizations that make up the bulk of the argument.

2) The generalizations in the argument are simply unforgivable. To label all those who stayed as "primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks" neglects those who died in their hospital beds or in their nursing homes. It neglects the children who lost their lives or feared the loss of their lives. It neglects the number of poor whites who were unable to leave the city. Even more, it neglects the kind of socio-economic conditions that an economically stratified city engenders. Were there some "bad" people who stayed behind? No doubt, yet I found it fascinating that the media scrutinized so much the looters while there were decomposing bodies on the streets of a major American city. To extrapolate a moral assessment from the actions of a handful is simply illogical. Even more, we might observe that the anarchic aftermath to disasters is not isolated to certain races or peoples; this is a human phenomenon, not a racial one.

3) The famous "blame game": The fundamental question about Katrina is who is to blame. Nobody wants to take responsibility. Our president was too busy on vacation to realize the devastation until his aides made a DVD for him of the evening news! At the same time, the local government collapsed in the face of this disaster; they deserve blame. But the federal government's role, in my mind, is to use its size and resources when local and state governments fail. Under the tutelage of Mike Brown, FEMA collapsed.

But immediate causes are far too facile to explain this devastation. Katrina is about far more than government competence. It touches the core of the American psyche at the intersection of class and race. Let's leave out the wild rants of extremists right now. Can we agree that a city populated primarily by minorities in this country has the same political clout as affluent suburbs? Is their a moral obligation to treat all communities equally despite their political power? These are fundamental questions we must ask, not only about disaster relief, but about our education system. Stronger levees are not the answer to this pervasive problem.

4) Finally, perhaps the most atrocious bit of rhetoric is his argument that the US would crumble under black leadership. It is amazing that anyone could even fathom this argument today. Only a naive historical perspective permits one to assume that the US thus far has been an unmitigated success under the leadership primarily of whites; that is, Rev Peterson assumes that black leadership would cause the country to take a 180 towards decadence and crime. The litany of crimes is extensive from Manifest Destiny through today. Strides have been made towards a more equitable society, but we are not even close to that idyllic place yet. In the end, we are all humans under the curse of sin. Under black, white, or brown leadership, I think the results would have been much the same: a litany of crimes with a modicum of success and a historical construct that emphasizes the latter at the expense of the former. Sweeping claims like those of the Rev can only be labeled as they are: racist. And, to be honest, those who propagate his ideas share the blame.

I am Hermione Granger

2005-08-28T14:02:00.000-05:00

I have shared with most of you my general apathy when it comes to personality tests. I am dizzied still by the Myers-Briggs letters, and I generally tend to fall between most of the polar categories upon which many of these tests are based. Sometimes, I think that the satisfaction that these tests engender has more to do with an exterior recognition of your personality that is rare in a world in which compliments can be few and far between rather than in gaining some new insight into your self.

All that being said, I thank Loni for pointing me to this fantastic personality test for all Harry Potter fans. Here are my results:

You scored as Hermione Granger. You're one intelligent witch, but you have a hard time believing it and require constant reassurance. You are a very supportive friend who would do anything and everything to help her friends out.

Hermione Granger

85%

Ron Weasley

80%

Harry Potter

70%

Remus Lupin

70%

Albus Dumbledore

60%

Sirius Black

55%

Ginny Weasley

45%

Draco Malfoy

45%

Severus Snape

40%

Lord Voldemort

40%

Your Harry Potter Alter Ego Is...?
created with QuizFarm.com

I always knew I was a teenage witch in the dark recesses of my mind! In all seriousness, I pity anyone who ends up most like Voldermort. Scratch that, I pity that person's friends and family.

Are Apple owners in a cult?

2005-08-16T18:48:00.000-05:00

Perhaps there is some evidence today that those of us who own Macs are a bit fanatical in our brand loyalty. If a cheap iBook can inspire a mad rush over old ladies and anyone else who gets in your way, how much longer until old models are enshrined as relics? A scary scene . . . but $50 for an iBook is a pretty good deal!

Ghana pics and reflections

2005-08-10T13:04:00.000-05:00

I have posted pictures from Peachtree's trip to Ghana this summer here. These images tell of two weeks spent teaching and learning, worshipping and praying, loving and being loved.

There is nothing like international travel to reveal the isolated enclaves we tend to call home, the narrow cultural bounds that feel familiar to us. My trip this summer to Ghana served as a fresh reminder of how the mundane and quotidian for Americans is the stuff of dreams in much of the rest of the world. From what I understand, Ghana is not among the most impoverished nations on the African continent; nevertheless, the indelible fingerprints of the destructive colonial enterprise remain still. Amidst traditional huts of mud, clay, and straw are the teetering remains of imperial architecture; the same is true on a metaphorical plane. The legacy of the slave trade and several hundred years of imposed rule have filtered into the everyday lives of most Ghanaians. Yet, there is a centuries-old vibrant spirit singing still amongst the people of Ghana. I learned a great deal on this trip, especially about the difficult mingling of Christianity and culture.

As an outsider in the Ghanaian culture, I often wondered what kind of posture my critical perspective should take in relation to the culture I was experiencing. I came up with a litany of empty and unsatisfactory options. First, I could commit the error of too many liberal Westerners and idealize the culture of Ghana. A typically tourist mindset, this perspective stresses the exotic and the strange. In a sense, the African drum brought back to the states serves as an emblem of a culture at which we can only gawk as visitors in a zoo. Second, I could commit the opposite fallacy and presume that Ghanaian culture has nothing to teach us, that the culture of the other must convert to the "right" way of life. History teaches us the dangerous depths of such a sinful stance. Third, I could take the strictly relativist position and argue that I have no grounds upon which to critique--whether positively or negatively--another culture. In any of these approaches, the cultural other is held at arm's length and either celebrated, scrutinized, or simply neglected without an earnest encounter with the culture itself.

The solution, I found, is not simple and probably lies beyond our rational capabilities. One can only hope in the end to meet and try to know, empathize with, and love specific individuals whose culture, language, food, and dress call into question my own. Unfortunately, the lessons of a trip overseas, no matter how impactful, tend to dissipate as complacency grows and one's own culture becomes commonplace once again.

Hopefully, the merciful end of the Schiavo tragedy

2005-06-15T15:02:00.000-05:00

With the release today of the autopsy report conducted on Terri Schiavo, we can hopefully close this dark chapter. The dangerous excesses of far-right ideologues remained in full view throughout the tragic and destructive rhetorical and political battle which surged around this family. A profoundly private decision which is made numerous times everyday in this country became a macabre public circus in which gutless politicians on one side of the aisle opted for a calculated silence and careless politicians on the other side made a calculated grab for ideological power. While I hope Schiavo can now rest in peace, we cannot forget the political carnival concocted around her hospital bed. When will Bill Frist acknowledge that flashing his doctoral credentials when he diagnosed this woman from videotape evidence was a gross abuse of his position and education? Probably never. When will Democratic Senators acknowledge that their silence permitted this tragedy to occur? Probably never. That is unless we remember and demand change. Perhaps I remain far too idealistic and naive, but I hope for the better.

Far too long of a blogging hiatus

2005-06-09T16:54:00.000-05:00

My absence in the blogosphere over the last few weeks has been a product of several factors. First, Holley and I joined our friends Abby and Jake in Costa Rica for a fantastic and active vacation. I learned how to surf a little bit, we rode ATVs on black sand beaches with no one else as far as you can see, and one of us nearly died in the whitewater . . . or at least one of us got a little scare! Second, we've been finalizing different matters in preparation for the closing on our home purchase this next Friday. Third, I've been reawakening my francophone self; after several years away from the language, I had buried all semblance of French reading ability under Greek, Hebrew, and a little German. Fortunately, it's slowly coming back, and I should have all the language requirements for my doctoral program out of the way. Fourth, I've been preparing to accompany a group from our church as we head to Ghana for two weeks at the end of the month. I'm really happy to have the opportunity to teach 1-3 John at a pastor's school there. Especially intriguing should be the radical change in scholastic context from a generally middle class malaise that too often pervades seminary education in the states. Previous teachers have told me that the eagerness of the students in Ghana to study and learn the Bible would put us all to shame. It seems certain that our affluence dulls our spiritual and intellectual drive. I think this trip will be a refreshing reminder of the power of education.

All that being said, I apologize for the dearth of posts. I have truly enjoyed the opportunity simply to write for the joy of it and also the insightful feedback my friends have provided. Thanks and stay tuned.

Putting the reality in reality television

2005-05-17T20:45:00.000-05:00

Those of you who know me well are deeply aware of my love of reality television. I have watched the gamut from Joe Millionaire, Mr. Personality, and Temptation Island (you know you watched them too; don't deny it) to The Real World (in all its iterations), Survivor, and The Amazing Race. Admittedly, some reality television is tawdry and shallow and descends to the lowest common denominator of the human intellect. Even more, so much of the "reality" of the reality show has been drained by participants looking for their latest breaks and producers hoping to film some sort of "hyper-reality," meaning that too many reality shows try to orchestrate too explicitly drama, conflict, and hilarity.

A case in point is MTV's The Real World, the granddaddy of all reality television. In the show's inception, a spectrum of individuals was placed into a house. And while each cast member was supposed to fulfill a particular type (the naive Southern virgin, the angry black man, the rocker), there was a deeper sense of reality. Some were just leaving home for the first time, other were knee-deep in school or career. Particularly exemplary was the third season of the show when Pedro Zamora's battle with HIV/AIDS humanized the illness and homosexuality for a whole generation of young people.

Before homosexuality was a way to draw in viewers through controversy (e.g. Ellen's famous lesbian kiss) and a stereotypical comic prop (e.g. Will and Grace), Pedro lived and later died as a homosexual man in America. Soon after Pedro's passing, President Clinton summed it up well when he argued that all Americans now knew someone who had died from AIDS. It is in this way that reality television can be most potent, that is, when it lays bares humanity in all its beauty and grotesqueness, its joys and pains, its gains and losses.

Unfortunately, recent iterations of the previously cutting-edge The Real World have opted for the tawdry and vapid lives of people far too young and far too drunk. They provide an endless supply of alcohol and never-changing cast of externally beautiful people with very little to say. Even more disturbing to me is the rampant promiscuity the show captures and promotes. Has The Real World so quickly forgotten the legacy of Pedro Zamora?

Or perhaps I am growing too old to understand "kids today." Nevertheless, I'll keep watching . . .

Taking the plunge into home ownership

2005-05-11T15:40:00.000-05:00

Just this week, Holley and I signed a contract to purchase our first home. We'll be moving in during the month of July, so if you're bored, feel free to move a couch or two! We will certainly celebrate the occassion with a barbeque or two this summer so look for the e-vite. See more pics here.

George Will on religion in America

2005-05-05T10:07:00.000-05:00

Though I rarely concur with George Will, his assessment in his latest commentary on the current state of politics and religion seems particularly incisive and critical. His warning that American Christians should not confuse actual persecution with the relative annoyances some Christians face in the country today is a decidedly needed corrective:

"Some Christians should practice the magnanimity of the strong rather than cultivate the grievances of the weak. But many Christians are joining today's scramble for the status of victims. There is much lamentation about various 'assaults' on 'people of faith.' Christians are indeed experiencing some petty insults and indignities concerning things such as restrictions on school Christmas observances. But their persecution complex is unbecoming because it is unrealistic."

I would go even a step further and suggest that the so-called "assaults on people of faith" as a whole are political concoctions intended to raise the ire and fear of conservative believers. The red herrings of gay marriage and prayer in school serve to distract much-needed attention and scrutiny away from issues much closer to the heart of the faith Jesus taught. Hunger, war, and poverty still thrive among us on a local as well as international level, yet much of the Christian right cannot overcome their political myopia over issues of little consequence like a granite monument of the Ten Commandments or the thought of two men choosing to live as one. Have we lost sight of the truly radical edge of the gospel of Christ?

The fantastic world of RSS readers

2005-04-28T15:42:00.000-05:00

If your list of blogs to consult seems to become more and more difficult to control, you might want to think about investing a little bit of time in setting up an RSS reader. RSS stands either for Rich Site Summary or Really Simple Syndication. Simply put, a website can choose to broadcast or syndicate its content; an RSS reader tracks these syndications down and alerts you when a new entry has been made on the website. This works for blogs but also for news and sports sites.

For Mac users, you can either upgrade to Mac OS X: Tiger which includes a new version of Safari with RSS capabilities built in, or you can download NetNewsWire Lite; it's free but you have to scroll all the way down on the page to find the download link. PC users can use Mozilla's e-mail client Thunderbird as an RSS reader. There are several options out there, but these are a few I might recommend.

Once you download the program, you just look for the address upon which the site is syndicating. For blogspot sites, just add /atom.xml to any address and voila. For others, you might have to do some hunting. Happy blogging!

The banning of books, sadly, alive and well

2005-04-28T15:18:00.000-05:00

Fearing the so-called "homosexual agenda," a senator in Alabama has introduced a bill which would ban the purchase of new books for the state's libraries which were authored by homosexuals or included homosexual characters in their stories. Read the story here. But the good senator assures us that this is not censorship: "I don't look at is as censorship. I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children." Right . . .

Somehow the very basic definition of "censorship" has eluded this elected official. Censorship remains censorship even if done with "good" intentions. Nevertheless, the senator's intentions here are laughable. The article mentions that for a while the bill included Shakespeare within the gaze of its homophobic wrath. Now, I know about the rumors that have circulated about the bard, but, honestly, where will this bill draw the line? The bill is now written so that "classics" will not be banned. Presumably the subtle (and not so subtle) homosexuality of Homeric epic is acceptable but not Alice Walker's haunting prose in The Color Purple. What about Walt Whitman? Adrienne Rich? Seemingly, whether a work is a classic or not is in the eye of the beholder.

I think this is precisely where the more sinister side of such a move lies. This has little to do with protecting young minds but with inoculating a public institution from anything which might verge upon the offensive, with anything which might ruffle the feathers of the high-minded moral police. This act is not about protection but control and that control would stifle imagination, compassion, and the willingness to see the world through another's perspective, three things from which the world would benefit today. And let us not forget what signal this sends to young women and men struggling to form their sexual identity. Not only will they be isolated and alone among their peers, but if the senator has his way, they would be left adrift without even an imaginary interlocutor to reflect and share their struggles to form a healthy sexual identity.

New book on the shelf

2005-04-27T14:33:00.000-05:00

I just picked up the novel Gilead today thanks to Millinerd's glowing recommendation. Has anyone else read the novel? Those of you in ministry or headed that way might find it particularly apropos.

The sad lessons of "Justice Sunday"

2005-04-27T14:16:00.000-05:00

In a profoundly arrogant political stance, our good friends on the Christian right this last Sunday night showed their true colors. In my recent--and naive--past, I had hoped that religion could play a more significant part in our political discourse. The beliefs we hold, the various ways we structure the world, our ethics: these are the core of just policies intended to better human life. However, political discourse has deteriorated into a facile bifurcation. One is either a rabid, intolerant conservative or a weak-minded, idealistic liberal; a God-hater or a true believer; rational and thoughtful or deceived by faith and thus foolish. What has happened?

Perhaps we can begin to place some blame on the vapid ethos of marketing which now pervades political discourse. Zinging debates sell while nuanced and fair discussions cause us all to snooze. Perhaps we can begin to place some blame on our pastors and churches who too often fear a congregation who questions and doubts. But ultimately the fault lies with all of us, with the silent majority of Christians who permit extremists on both sides to represent us.

I still hold some hope that religion can play a productive and enriching part in our political discourse. The narrow-minded efforts of pure secularists to expunge the public square of matters of faith is blind, inept, and impotent. Equally so is the narrow-minded effort to place the public square in the midst of pews and a single authoritative pulpit.

For more thoughts on "Justice Sunday," check out the Mainstream Baptist blog.

Harry Potter and Left Behind at FilmChat

2005-04-12T08:21:00.000-05:00

FilmChat continues to deliver wonderfully incisive postings on the intersection of film, pop culture, and religion. Two of the latest might be of interest to many of you.

The first article deals with the symbolism of the number 7 and its overlapping influence on the composition of the Narnia books as well as Harry Potter. He then closes the posting with a nice riposte against all the Harry Potter haters out there. Check it out here.

The second posting provocatively argues that the Left Behind series is nothing less than "evangelical pornography." Hmm, that might raise a bit of ire out there. These guys didn't sell millions of copies for no reason, but I think that the post starts to answer the question as to why they were so successful. Check it out here. And apparently, not even the second coming of Christ can stop these two from raking in even more dough . . . um, I mean, writing more books. The prequel is now in stores.

The power of the internet or an empty gesture?

2005-04-11T08:45:00.000-05:00

Drama continues to percolate amidst the graduates of my alma mater. My previous posting on the changes in OBU's policy on sexuality are apparently only a symptom of a much deeper disaffection. The recent firing of the public relations director due to his public criticism of a significant church in the small town of Shawnee (read about it here) along with enrollment and retention issues going back several years have prompted the following website: www.saveobu.com.

Following the link will bring you to an online petition asking for President Mark Brister's resignation. At last check, eleven signatures have been added but only five have chosen not to remain anonymous. Also unfortunate is the fact that the rationale behind this democratic move is not clearly enunciated. For those of us on the fringe of the OBU loop, information is severely lacking. While I too have been concerned with the more restrictive administrative moves made over the last few years as well as the reduced emphasis on the unified studies program, I am not sure yet whether I feel comfortable signing this petition. What do other OBU alum think?

Beyond the debate over Brister's administrative success lies the question of whether such efforts can accomplish their stated goals. Can anonymous declarations carry the force needed to engender change? Can an online petition collect the necessary political and economic clout? Perhaps the goals of the petition-makers are much more humble. What this petition may achieve is the slow eye-opening of alums to the changes occurring at their alma mater and that may be half the battle.

On your comments

2005-04-02T17:49:00.000-05:00

To those of you who have so kindly left comments on my blog, I extend my sincere thanks . . . and also apologies. I recently installed a new system for collecting comments on this blog which unfortunately left old comments in the oblivion of cyberspace. I have done my best to recover them, but I am at a loss at this point. So, please try out the new comments system, and let me know what you think. Thanks.

What's missing from Harry's world?

2005-04-02T17:30:00.000-05:00

Since I first entered the world of Hogwarts and Muggles, I have been fascinated with the tales of Harry Potter. For those of you who haven't had a chance to enter this fantastic world fiction, my suggestion is not to dismiss the books as simple infantile fantasy. Something much deeper occurs in these books as Harry faces the consequences of decisions and events that far preceded his birth; even more, he has to grapple with the battle of good and evil within himself. Rowling is truly a gifted storyteller. And while the movies have generally been disappointing, the latest film directed by the gifted Alfonso Cuaron reflects the depth of imagination and thought Rowling has poured into her work.

Nevertheless, I wish I could sit down with Rowling one day just try to understand one missing aspect of Harry's world: religion. While myth and history are intertwined in the stories, the only oblique reference to religion is in the annual celebration of a strictly secular Christmas event; it functions much more as a winter break than a holiday in the strictest sense of the word. So how would a wizard perceive a religious claim? There is certainly a sense of mystery and a clear tension between good and evil in the books but nothing explicitly religious. Could a witch be a Christian, a Muslim, or an atheist? Do wizards on account of their power lack the need to take a position on theology?

I would guess that Rowling would answer that religion simply is unneeded in her telling of the story, and I might agree. Nevertheless, my curiosity would be unsatiated, and I would wonder if the story would reverberate even more in my mind if theology or something like theology were a part of this fantastic world. Or perhaps, the presence of Christians among the wizarding world would only bolster the phobic positions of some who see these books as enticing intoxicants which draw the reader closer to the dark world.

For another perspective on what may be lacking in Harry's world, see this fascinating article on the dearth of the fine arts in the storyline. It comes from the FilmChat blog, one of my new favorites over the last few weeks.

The Schiavo legacy

2005-04-02T10:35:00.000-05:00

ABPNews recently reported that Florida Judge George Greer, who ordered the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, recently resigned his membership from one of the largest and most conservative SBC churches in Florida. Was it an act of personal moral conviction? Actually, the pastor of the church virtually asked him to leave the congregation having written in the baptist state paper that the Judge's act was tantamount to murder. For Pastor Willy Rice, Greer's resignation appeared to be the "biblical course" to take.

In my mind, the fall-out from this political and personal tragedy is only beginning. I am not absolutely sure if we have all realized the lengths that the Florida legislature considered in order to intervene in this case. They actually pondered passing a law that would forbid families from removing feeding tubes unless a living will explicitly stated the patient's wishes. Even though I am not exactly a conservative when it comes to government, this intrusion into the most personal and excruciating decision a family can make is disturbing.

Where is this all heading? We will have to see how the political tremors eventually settle. I worry though that what was once a painful personal decision will only be complicated by political grandstanding in favor of a very narrow political interest. Andrew Sullivan has some excellent comments on this issue.

Perhaps most disturbing was the political grandstanding from one side of the aisle with virtual silence punctuating the other. I grew very weary of the ludicrous comparisons of this case with both the Holocaust and the crucifixion of Christ. I grew very weary of the vitriolic attacks of a man completing his wife's wishes. I grew very weary of the political manipulation of two parents who had lost so much. I grew the most weary that people who opposed this political circus kept their mouths firmly shut.

Sexuality at a baptist college

2005-04-01T17:50:00.000-05:00

While some churches find themselves divided over the issue of homosexuality, others are still debating the role of women in the church and in the pulpit. Both debates ultimately come down to a question of hermeneutics. How do we read and interpret the scriptures for our time? How do we parse culturally-conditioned statements that no longer apply to us and "universal" commands that apply to all people and at all times? Is a biblical position that resembles the latter even possible? Finally, how do our own experiences inform our reading of scripture?

In light of these crucial hermeneutical questions, I was surprised to come across the following statement in an OBU press release announcing the development of a new policy on sexuality:

The five-paragraph policy on human sexuality states that it is a “community expectation that OBU students, faculty, and staff will neither engage in nor promote understandings of sexuality that contradict biblical standards.”

The statement disturbs me on several fronts. First, it is so vague as to be impotent. How does one draw a line between "promotion" and "discussion?" On a hermeneutical level, I wonder who determines the contours of a "biblical standard." Whose authority will make this policy relevant? Second, the statement is so vague as to be dangerous and harmful to the academic ethos I found in my years at OBU. For the same reason that the policy is impotent, it could become a destructive tool for institutional power. Academic freedom demands that even the most deep-seated belief be exposed to critique and appraisal. Otherwise, belief ossifies into a dogma that refuses to admit the limits of our understanding as creature and not Creator.

On a pastoral level, I become increasingly concerned that the church is turning its back on students struggling with issues of sexuality. Even those who hold that homosexuality is a sin must admit that the struggles which emerge from the definition of the sexual self are incredibly arduous. For an institution of higher education to take such a hostile posture towards the discussion of a painful topic reflects a blind arrogance bordering on delinquent indifference.

I worry that the school which shaped me to think critically and with compassionate acumen should embrace such a vaguely composed statement. Fortunately, there are voices out there resisting such change. Consider also the experience of this OBU student.

The unfortunate side of virginity pledges

2005-04-01T17:15:00.000-05:00

I grew up along with the increasing prevalence of virginity pledges amongst young Christian people. True Love Waits was a true phenomenon among my Christian cohort in high school and college. Unfortunately, as the church tragically tends to do, the gospel message has been too easily diluted and distorted.

A recent study concluded that virginity pledges actually increase the likelihood that young people will engage in dangerous sexual activity; additionally, they don't so much diminish the likelihood that young people will remain virgins until marriage but that they will wait a little longer to join their sexually-active peers. Something is seriously wrong with the church's efforts to educate young people and to help them develop a healthy sexual identity. Ignoring the topic only exacerbates the problem. Apparently, virginity pledges are having a similar effect.

Although the topic of virginity may emerge in youth group meetings because of these efforts, the wider topic of teen sexuality remains repressed. The complex facets of sexuality have been subsumed to a single sexual act. Virginity pledges provide a black-and-white response to a question that evokes many a shade of grey. While sexual intercourse is labeled sinful for unmarried people, sexual intimacy in all its forms is not discussed; young people are left to their own devices (in other words, hormones and a brain still in the early stages of moral reasoning) to distinguish between acceptable levels of sexual intimacy.

I think that the gospel message is being lost amidst our repressed sexual mores. As Americans, we are generally uncomfortable with the topic of sex. Even more and perhaps a good source for further reflection, American notions of sexuality are coded in a gendered mode in such a way as to lay the burden of purity nearly solely upon the shoulders of women. Mix in a culture soaked with immature and titillating sexuality, and you have a potently dangerous concoction. How can we best communicate with our young people both the joyful grace of human sexuality and the need for them to protect their bodies from disease and their emotions from potentially destructive damage?

An assessment of the Passion re-release

2005-03-17T21:56:00.000-05:00

I just read a great analysis of Gibson's new cut of the Passion at Filmchat. Check it out here.

The wide grasp of fundamentalist reading

2005-03-15T16:11:00.000-05:00

Protesting the recent Supreme Court decision to join most of the world in banning the senseless execution of juveniles, Justice Antonin Scalia articulated a view of the constitution text that could just as easily be voiced by a biblical literalist. He stressed the importance of reading the text of the constitution and to discern its meaning as originally intended. He explains, "When I find it, the original meaning of the constitution, I am handcuffed."

Much of this debate revolves around whether or not the constitution is a "living document" or one whose original intent strictly delimits its interpretation. These type of disputes should not be unfamiliar with those of us engaged in the study of the bible. Ultimately, we might ask the fundamentalist whether we should read the constitution and the bible in the same way. Is the founding legal document of the US in some way inerrant or infallible? Of course, I don't mean that those who hold the inerrancy of scripture would attach the same significance to the constitution. Nevertheless, at times, we proffer this nation the kind of adoration, dedication, and awe due solely to God; neither should we inject a text with the reverence due only to God.

Justice Scalia seems to neglect a vital insight into the practice of reading and interpretation. Though the letter of text remain relatively unchanged, we never come to a text in the same way twice. We have changed, and our society has changed. In the case of the execution of juveniles, this is thankfully true.

Sibling retaliation

2005-03-11T12:35:00.000-05:00

Take that, all you younger siblings out there. Sure, you get everything you wanted growing up but how's that working out for you now? In all seriousness, issues of birth order are fascinating, but I am always a little hesitant to accept the findings of studies like these. With the many factors involved in human development, can birth order be isolated so specifically? Even more, is there something deeper working in familial relationships that is producing these results?

The eradication of memory

2005-03-11T11:10:00.000-05:00

We finally got a chance to watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind the other night; I strongly recommend the film though I suggest that you be fully prepared for a storyline that folds back on itself. If you are tired or a week of hard work has drained your intellectual sensibilities, you may want to hold off on the rental.

I think that the movie asks a fascinating and fundamentally theological question. Can love change the very fabric of our being? Even if memory is erased, has love already infected our being in a much deeper mode than simple cognition?

Happy Birthday, Maz!

2005-03-02T23:08:00.001-05:00

I'm just checking to see if my loving sister dutifully checks her big brother's blog. Let's put it to the test. Happy Birthday, Maz. Truly, we are a long way from this day.

Hypertexting the Bible

2005-03-02T23:08:00.000-05:00

It is definitely the case in my life that I find it difficult to believe that I ever functioned in the world without the internet. I have vague recollections of browsing through cards at a library looking for books and calling the local theater for movie times. Yet far more interesting is that I have become so accustomed to the conveniences the internet proffers. Type in someone's name, a topic, a news item, etc., and information floods onto your screen. Clearly, this is a mixed blessing for the sorting and assessment of information is cumbersome and dictated by the quality--not the quantity--of search results.

With the rise of the internet, the lives of those us fortunate enough to tap into cyberspace were radically changed. Surprisingly, however, one thing has not changed as some had expected: books. Standing in the middle of hundreds of books sellers hawking their newest volumes and towering piles of the printed word at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, one can sense that the publishing of books is still alive and well. Perhaps the dire predictions of the demise of publishing were a bit premature.

Nevertheless, I think it is high time that we begin to examine the hermeneutical shifts that cyberspace may require of biblical exegetes. That both the shifts from scroll manuscripts to the codex format and the rise of print culture following the proliferation of printing presses changed the very nature of reading is clear. In retrospect, the theological and hermeneutical effects of such technological innovation are far easier to delineate. Much more difficult is assessing how our stance before the text will change when it is reproduced on a computer screen rather than held between leather covers on thin paper in two columns. D.C. Parker comments,

Regarding electronic texts, another matter should be remembered. Both manuscript and printed books are not only seen, but also handled. Fine parchment and high-quality paper, leather bindings and tooling are to be felt. The electronic text is present to the reader behind a barrier. While the writer is closer to the text because of the ease with which it can be manipulated, to the user it is remote, accessible only at a remove by the use of the keyboard. A book may be kissed as a relic or held aloft as the Gospel or sworn upon as something sacrosanct. It is hard to see such use ever being made of a diskette. (194-5)

The same could probably be said of the trusty and proverbial King James family bible found in many an American household; will it be replaced with a flash drive someday? Also important might be the relative inaccessibility of hypertexted bibles to those without the technical literacy to tap into computing power. Ultimately, we might even ask whether the wide-spread distribution of bibles in electronic form will have any effect on biblical literacy; after all, the Gideons have already stocked every hotel in this country, and new translations and study bibles line our bookshelves.

Maybe this subtle shift in the form of the biblical text will bring us to a renewed appreciation of the transmission of these texts throughout time. As how we read the bible shifts, we may reflect upon the historical processes that brought this word to our day. Parker opines,

The Gospel texts can be properly understood only by recognizing the significance of the medium in which they are transmitted. We thus conclude this section with the beginning. Their origins and early transmission were as manuscript copies. It is with the physical reality of their existence that our interpretation of them must reckon. (196)

From manuscript to hypertext, the texts of scripture continue to beckon some and repel others, both confound and inspire. Many of us find ourselves in the midst of these tensions. The challenges and opportunities of electronic bibles will only require our continued and diligent attention.

The two sides of Princeton

2005-02-24T00:38:00.000-05:00

The halcyon environs of Mercer Street with its boutiques and extravagant restaurants is deceptive. So also are the majestic buildings which dot the campuses of Princeton University and Princeton Theological Seminary. Often unacknowledged is a darker side of the town, darker both literally and figuratively. Recent news of immigration raids in Princeton and surrounding cities have torn a small gash in this proverbial curtain.

Behind the manifest wealth of the town is a thriving population of immigrants from Guatemala and other portions of Central and South America. These individuals play a silent, hidden role as they clean offices in the dark of night, cook food at the rear of restaurants, and clean houses on the weekends. Their struggles are muffled by the loud chatter of economic and intellectual success.

This stark divide was perhaps most pernicious in my mind at PTS. When students or faculty speak of the seminary "community," little thought was generally given to these individuals. Let me be clear; I do not exclude myself from such an arrogant posture. However, as Christians, I hope we can all do better in appreciating and perhaps even privileging the experiences of our sisters and brothers whose daily existence rests on a tenuous line.

On the one hand, this country depends on their labor and will look the other way when necessary. On the other hand, vile xenophobic rhetoric too often litters political discourse and seeps into cultural perceptions.

I know nothing of the experience of depending upon seasonal work for sustenance. However, Justo Gonzalez's reading of the parable of the workers has been particularly enlightening to me:

When this story is read in most churches, there is a general reaction that the whole thing is unfair. It is just not right that people who worked more should be paid the same as people who worked less. In that social context, all that is seen is the injustice, and the sermon then usually argues that God's grace is above justice.

In contrast, when the parable is read in some of our poor Hispanic churches there are people who immediately identify with the laborers, for they understand the plight of those who must go early in the morning to stand at a place where someone may come in a pickup truck and hire them. They may be lucky one day and find a whole day's work. Other days, they may spend hours waiting, and find nothing to do, or be hired only for a couple of hours. They clearly understand, because they have experienced it, the conversation between the landowner and those who are still standing around at about five o'clock: "Why are you standing here idle all day?" "Because no one has hired us." Then comes the surprising finale, where the landowner pays those who only worked a couple of hours a whole day's wage, and the reaction is not one of mystification and outrage, as in a middle-class congregation, but rather of joy and celebration. They can see that this is not an act of injustice, but rather an act of supreme justice. Those hired at five o'clock were not at fault in not having found work earlier. They were actually standing there all day, hoping against hope that someone would hire them. In a sense, they had more hope and stamina than those who were guaranteed a job early in the day. The fact that no one hired them does not mean that they will not have to eat, or that their needs will be lesser. They too need a day's wages in order to survive. Thus, the landowner's act in paying them a full day's wage is not a show of grace that goes against justice, but rather of a grace that understands justice at a deeper level than is customary. The landowner pays them what they justly need and what they justly deserve, not what society, with its twisted understanding of justice, would pay them. Common justice would wash its hands of any responsibility for these unfortunate ones who did not find enough work to earn a living. This utterly just landowner, in contrast, pays them what they need, and what they should have been ready to earn had they been hired earlier. (62-3)

Hotel Rwanda

2005-02-21T10:21:00.000-05:00

I have been a longtime admirer of Don Cheadle's work. He has always played interesting and well-drawn characters just on the edge of the movie screen. In Hotel Rwanda, however, Cheadle takes center stage and magnificently brings the tragedy of genocide to life. The internal conflicts of Paul Rusesabagina are brought masterfully unto the movie screen with a subtly and honesty that should make the Oscar voting for best actor a simple decision.

Particularly striking to me was how Paul's initial optimism in the empathy of the world is shattered in the face of cruel and benign neglect. In the film, the willful powerlessness of the west is symbolized by Nolte's character and remains a stinging indictment of the western indifference.

Having been engaged in a conversation about the issue of Biblical authority in light of the Canaanite conquest, the film was a visual and visceral reminder of why so many of us resist the presence of divinely sanctioned genocide. Add the current conversations about the accuracy and ideological impetus behind the composition of the book Joshua, and the question is only complicated. Can viewing this film place our view of the authority of scripture in a different light?

The most haunting line of the film comes from Joaquin Phoenix's character, a western journalist. When Paul expresses his hope that pictures and accounts of genocide would spur the west to action, the cameraman responds, "They will say, 'Oh God, how terrible.' And then they'll continue eating their dinners."

Ethics and the experience of encountering the other

2005-02-20T23:29:00.000-05:00

The recent news that the contract of New Brunswick Seminary's president was not renewed after officiating at his daughter's marriage to another woman sparked my memory. In Battle for the Minds, a documentary covering the fundamentalist takeover of Southern Baptist Seminary, Dr. Molly Marshall (an OBU graduate, just thought I'd mention it!) argues that the resistance exhibited by many conservatives to women in the pulpit are rooted in experience--to be more exact a lack of experience. She tells an illustrative story of the children's play in the nursery of a church which she served as a solo pastor. The nursery worker had to intercede in defense of the young boys in the nursery when the children played church. The girls insisted that the boys could not be pastors. The wise nursery worker had to explain, "Now, girls, little boys can be pastors too!" Marshall goes on to explain that these young children were building theological positions upon what they had seen and experienced and proposes that a lack of exposure to women in ministerial positions only buttresses conservative positions on the issue.

I have become increasingly convinced that personal exposure is an excellent check for our theological positions. In our typically isolated churches, the tendency to ignore the presence of homosexuals in the community or even in the pews only complicates the emotional issues around the reaction of the church to the gay and lesbian community. It is one thing to condemn and vilify a faceless stranger, a whole other matter when one is dealing with a neighbor, a friend, a sibling, a child, or a parent.

If there is anything upon which both sides of this controversial issue can agree, it is that historically the church has been cruel and unloving in its treatment of homosexuals; simply, we have not followed the example of Christ. The first step towards healing and understanding amongst us all is a basic appreciation for one another as creatures of God. It is a small step but an important step nonetheless.

I read your blog . . . you're fired

2005-02-12T16:46:00.000-05:00

Yahoo news reports that blogging can be dangerous to your career. Anonymity on the web sounds more and more attractive and much less of a possibility everyday.

Did Star Wars and Jaws ruin film?

2005-02-12T01:08:00.000-05:00

Has Hollywood lost its way? If so, when exactly did the movie industry lose its soul? If you're anything like me, I love the movies and their ability to encapsulate both the hope and despair of humans in potent ways. However, I also lament the inane garbage that passes off as theater. Now don't get me wrong; I am not a film snob by any stretch of the imagination. I've probably seen Old School one too many times and will likely watch it anytime it shows up on HBO. I even have a good friend who proudly claims the moniker, "Frank the Tank." Nevertheless, there are a lot of pointless movies released so that the studios can make a quick buck in the first two weeks of release and then on the release of the DVD.

A recent article on the history and future of cinema in the New Yorker reviews several recent efforts to dissect and analyze the history of American film. Most mark a crucial point at which the movies started deteriorating, a veritable rise and fall account of Hollywood. For each account, a different development in the industry plays the role of the barbarian horde. One even had the audacity to blame Star Wars and Jaws for the 'blockbuster' attitude now pervading movie executives's minds!

Yet, why have we embraced the 'blockbuster' mentality and come out in droves for the opening days of the weekly must-see movies? Menand postulates,

The all-consuming desire is to get as many ticket buyers as possible into the theatre on the first weekend, and, amazingly, people oblige. The crowds at the opening of a blockbuster are a fascinating window on mass psychology. If people just wait a couple of weeks, they can have their pick of seats. But when they get back to school or to the office no one will want to hear what they thought of the picture. That was last week's conversation.

Menand continues as he explains how critically-panned movies still do well at the box office:

Before the word of mouth has made it around the block, the movie has already taken in, from the opening weekend, typically somewhere between twenty-five and forty per cent of its total gross.... The reason that those movies had such enormous grosses, despite terrible reviews and negative word of mouth, is that each opened on eighteen thousand screens simultaneously worldwide. As Shone says, about the typical blockbuster, "By the time we've all seen that it sucked, it's a hit."

But is the diagnosis a bit too dire. Have the movies deteriorated so precipitously from their heyday? We saw Million Dollar Baby the other night and learned once again that drama, powerful story-telling, and character development are not solely components of films from yesteryear. What do you all think? Have the movies seen a precipitous drop in quality and substance over the decades?

A follow-up on tsunami theodicy

2005-02-03T16:09:00.000-05:00

Scripps Howard New Service recently posted this article in response to theological postulations of God's role in the tsunami. Thanks to fellow OBU grad Jake for the tip.

Particularly perturbing to me in the current political climate of this country is the constant claim of victimization among too many Christians. While believers are struggling under great duress and oppression in places like Sudan, American Christianity has too frequently taken the posture of a victim when policies do not go their way. The banning of public prayer and religious displays suddenly becomes an oppressive strike against the core of Christianity. Violence in school and the general deterioration of society are blamed upon policy decisions that are perceived as anti-Christian.

Admittedly, some of the decisions passed down by school boards, legislatures, and the courts unnecessarily limit religious expression in public. For example, as long as different religious traditions have equal access, there is no reason why the expression of religion cannot have a place in public discourse. Nevertheless, facile rhetoric takes the place of thoughtful debate when these decisions are framed as a pitched battle between secularists and true believers. Let's be frank. Most Christians do not have to suffer for the faith in this country; while ridicule and disdain may be directed at some believers, slightly bruised feelings are not a sign of persecution.

Of course, theological explanations for the tsunami are not unique to the western world as Islamic commentators have also constructed their own theories. Finding meaning and purpose behind such inexplicable tragedy is a natural human reaction, yet we should also pause and reflect upon the various motives behind our ruminations.

Oscar nominations

2005-01-27T22:46:00.000-05:00

Conspicuous in their absence from the Oscar nominations announced a few days ago were two films that, in a certain sense, encapsulated the socio-political, cultural, and religious trajectories of the last year. The brainchildren of two Michael's from opposite ends of the political and religious spectrum symbolized well the polarization which divides and defines the modern American milieu.

On the one hand, Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 sought to represent the millions of Americans disturbed by the Bush administration's handling of the so-called 'war on terrorism.' Particularly striking was the patriotic tone embraced by the filmmaker to emphasize his own love for country even as he critiqued its policies. And while entertaining to me, the movie was clearly a piece of propaganda; however, I do not think that the movie suggested it was anything but a slanted, biased ideological confession. If anything, the movie should serve to remind us of how common human bias is in the media and how we ought to be most suspicious of those individuals and outlets which incessantly claim to be 'fair and balanced' or 'the most trusted name in news.' The critical acumen of the American consumer of media must be sharpened if we hope to be informed. Should this film have been nominated? Probably not. Although it inspired its own kind of passion, it was not a piece of art like Finding Neverland and, in my mind, was not deserving of the kind of critical approval the Oscar carries with it.

On the other hand was Gibson's The Passion of Christ. Although the film had its thoughtful moments--including the powerful depiction of Peter's rejection of Christ and the touching interactions between Jesus and his mother, an aspect of the human Christ too often neglected by Protestants--the gruesome, endless violence served solely a masochistic, guilt-inducing purpose. To compare the gospel accounts and classic artistic representations of the cross to this gory spectacle is to compare works intended to evoke contemplation and thought to one solely hoping to make another buck in the entertainment industry. Particularly disturbing to me was the mass marketing of the film conducted by the church. Gibson didn't need to spend a dime on promoting the film as pastors and churches served as advertising firms; their passion to promote Passion left no room for critique and thought. This film also did not deserve the highest of critical approval.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan when he writes in his blog, "Kudos to the academy for ignoring the execrable 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and the pornographic 'Passion.' Right-wing and left-wing ideologies will be disappointed. But what do they know about art?" I do expect both sides to claim that their favorite film was rejected because of ideological reasons. In my mind, all you have to do is watch some of the current nominees to realize that these movies, though culturally significant, are simply not in the same class.

Theological interpretation of an 'act of God'

2005-01-25T21:07:00.000-05:00

Insurance policies speak rather ambivalently of 'acts of God' so as to define the limits of liability. Just as flippantly, some ecclesial leaders will short-sightedly inject tragedy with divine retribution.

Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America." Somehow, the attack on veritable symbols of American military and economic power did not factor into Falwell's facile theological calculus.

Unfortunately, a natural disaster cannot escape receiving such analysis. ABP reports that Henry Blackaby, the author of Experiencing God, "told a Kentucky pastors' conference workshop he recognized God's hand of judgment in the tsunami after he saw a map published by Voice of the Martyrs showing areas of intense persecution of Christians worldwide." The article goes on to detail how others have responded and argued the theological and factual vapidity of Blackaby's assertion.

Of course, such an impetus is nothing new. The bible, especially the Hebrew scriptures, grapple valiantly with the potential for God's judgment coming upon the wings of locusts or the edge of a conquering sword. Seeking a theological motive behind inexplicable disaster is a natural human reaction but one that should be tempered with compassion and theological humility.

John 9 reports that the disciples quizzed Jesus as to the theological source of a blind man's affliction. Jesus deflects the question and instead showers the man with compassion and love. This tragedy was not a theological judgment but a tragedy ripe for God's grace. I just hope that this kind of compassion will prevail in this situation and that God's hand will not be blamed for natural or human tragedy in the service of our own ideological battles.

The Leonardo Code

2005-01-24T20:17:00.000-05:00

In Dan Brown's imaginative--and lucrative--tale, the ideal Renaissance man (Leonardo) and Jesus become inextricably linked in a dazzling web of intrigue, conspiracy, and covert ideologies and power. While a great deal of attention has been paid in the press and amongst Christians concerning Brown's attempted revisioning of the sources of the Christian church (a move wholly rooted in novelistic concerns and very little in actual historical datum), whether Leonardo's character was maligned or represented unfairly has not produced much contemplation. In the Jan. 17, 2005 edition of The New Yorker, Adam Gopnik reviews two recent biographies of the Renaissance man.

The juxtaposition of these two works reveals interesting dimensions of a man who has inspired something of a modernist cultic following. Is Leonardo a scientific precursor to recent discoveries? Was he modern before being modern was the "cool thing" to do? Though we may try to make Leonardo an enlightened precursor of modernity, the evidence may struggle against our anachronistic ways. Gopnik illustrates,

"The famous figure of Vitruvian man, for instance, splayed out in his encircled square, is in origin a derivative illustration of an antique idea about regular proportions: a man's proportions when the arms are horizontal make a square; with the arms diagonal they center a circle. Though it is possible to see this as a 'humanist' ideal, it is not necessarily so; it says not that man's proportions are divine but merely that they are regular. The point of the image is not that man is the measure of all things; it is that man can, like all things, be measured. But the tension between this abstract and diminishing idea and its realization as a strange, aged, specific figure, with a strong, ostentatious but perfect body and a grave, unforgettable face--half Don Imus, half St. Jerome; Nicholl suggests that it is a self-portrait--gives the image a certain heroism, as though the individual had stoically lent himself for a scientific trial."

What seems to be the case was that Leonardo tread a precarious line between thought worlds colliding in the intellectual and spiritual ferment of the Renaissance. He further notes,

"Is Leonardo a scientist? We would like to make him one of ours, and are encouraged because through the years we have grown accustomed to the thought that scientists are in significant ways like artists: they imagine and observe and leap to hypotheses as poets leap to metaphors. They see beyond the thing at hand to the mysterious relation it may have to another thing at hand--when an apple drops on their head, they ask what dark, occult force in the earth drew it there. And yet, reading these new lives of Leonardo, one begins to think that scientists are not so very much like artists, and Leonardo least of all. He was a magus, and remains firmly on the far side of the scientific revolution. As Lisa Jardine's fine life of Robert Hooke reminded us recently, the real scientific revolution consisted of a willingness to measure once and again and then measure yet again. Doggedness, drudgery, and dutifulness--the three 'D's' of Protestantism--are at its heart, and those Leonardo never knew. He still thought by lunges and in metaphors. Things are understood by being shown to be like other things: the uterus is like a cosmos, the blood like rivers, the world is a microcosm."

I think that such insightful gazes into the thought world of Leonard lifts some of the mystery that permits Brown's imaginative mind to involve the artist in the greatest conspiracy of all time. These two biographies may provide us a portrait of an artist and not the caricature of a henchman.

And although interesting in and of themselves, these insights caused me to reflect on the task of theologians and, specifically, Biblical exegetes. Historical criticism spurred the 'scientific' study of the biblical texts which came to dominate western academia through the current day. No longer the queen of the sciences, theology had to justify its endeavors in an academy more and more interested in the so-called 'hard' sciences. The rise late last century towards literary criticism in biblical studies shifted the tide a bit along with an interest in narrative as a theological model. Yet the discipline remains quite entrenched in a scientific mode, broadly speaking.

How then ought we to label ourselves, scientists or artists? Do we follow the stricture of method and concoct testable hypotheses or do we interpret the impression of a text and summon theological significance with image and metaphor? Is there a middle ground for the theologian to claim as her own?

On the inauguration

2005-01-20T08:21:00.000-05:00

In days to come the mountain of the LORDS house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it. Many peoples shall come and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

-- Isaiah 2:2-4

Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 1953

Linking cultural hermeneutics and fundamentalism

2005-01-18T22:38:00.000-05:00

  Today, I finished reading Michael Brown's survey of African American hermeneutics, Blackening of the Bible: The Aims of African American Biblical Interpretation. Overall, I found that the book provided an excellent overview of the main trajectories of African American hermeneutics over the last few generations of scholars. Most enlightening, however, was Brown's assessments and critiques of this interpretive enterprise in his closing chapter. I was particularly interested in the causal ties Brown discerns between the mostly academic enterprise of cultural hermeneutics and the mostly ecclesial rise of fundamentalism in the African American church. He explains,

In my opinion, a great deal of African American biblical hermeneutics is a reaction or response to the perceived advancement of evangelical Christianity and fundamentalism in the African American community... Of course, such an apparently reductionist statement is open to a considerable amount of challenge from those desiring to account for other factors that have affected the development of African American interpretation. For example, many associate the rise of this mode of interpretation with the spread of various liberation theologies, but especially black theology. African American hermeneutics, then, serves as a form of biblical engagement that promotes the larger liberatory enterprise. All of this is true. I contend, however, that the development and spread of various liberation theologies coincides with the development and spread of fundamentalisms as reactions to modernity. Although they may be opposite or antagonistic responses, they are related nonetheless. As moderns, African Americans have experienced an acute separation from their past and thus from their posited collective identity. Fundamentalism is one way to construct such an identity. Black theology is another. In this sense then, African American hermeneutics is a reaction or response to the spread of conservative Christianity in the community. (154)

In other words, the certainty of a fundamentalist reading of Scripture provides a fundamental cultural component denied to African Americans by a tragic history of exploitation. The question remains whether liberatory theologies or fundamentalism are more successful in this crucial cultural function. Do the efforts of academics actually seep down into the pulpit and pew? What are the ultimate effects of academic study of the bible, both positive and negative?

Appropriately, the academy receives a hefty critique along these lines:

African American biblical scholars have begun to challenge the pervasive Eurocentrism they perceive as operative in the discipline. African American hermeneutics then is a counterproposal to a form of scholarship enamored with its European roots. It is the fruit of a critical mass of scholars "come of age," willing to challenge the discipline on something it took virtually for granted. And this is true. I contend, however, that embedded in this critique is a realization on the part of African American scholars that biblical scholarship has to this point enabled the spread of conservative evangelicalism by unwittingly providing scholarship that, when filtered, is used for evangelical advancement, and by demonstrating widespread disinterest in the social consequences of biblical interpretation. Through a certain form of benign neglect, biblical scholarship allows for the proliferation of scriptural readings that maintain an uncritical and potentially dangerous Eurocentric bias. (154-5)

With an insipid and "benign neglect," mainstream academic study of the bible has provided the necessary logical and interpretive fodder to sustain and feed fundamentalism, a result likely unexpected from scholars. African American scholars of the bible are thus seeking to turn the tide of the trickle-down effects of academia.

Whether Brown is correct in discerning a concomitant affinity between cultural hermeneutics and fundamentalism is a fascinating question to me. I absolutely concur that fundamentalist readings of scripture embrace distinctly moderns modes of interpretation and, too frequently, sap the mythic and spiritual dimensions of pericopes like Genesis 1-2 while simultaneously over-spiritualizing ethical demands which cut against the grain of a modern life imbued with nationalism and far too little concern for the poor and marginalized. A hermeneutical tact which recognizes the situatedness of all interpretation is both a clear reaction to and an initial step towards alleviating such a situation.

Ultimately, however, I wonder whether all-encapsulating terms like "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" simplify a daedal situation. Can these two terms be used interchangeably? Many of my "post-evangelical would likely demur. Can we speak of an "evangelical" or "fundamentalist" as such? The source of the ecclesial battles now raging in our churches are obfuscated when labels such as conservative/liberal dominate our discussions; morality or cultural values are certainly not central either.

In my mind, the most divisive issues of the day are hermeneutical in nature. How do we speak of biblical authority? How does God speak to us through scripture? These are the fractures which divide us and not the relatively simple ideological rhetoric of manipulative politicians or self-aggrandizing preachers.

Is it just me, or did I just miss a trend?

2005-01-17T22:18:00.000-05:00

Bloggers have clearly taken center stage in cyberspace over the last year. For better or worse, one's thoughts can be broadcast around the world for anyone who cares to scour and sort through the internet. I have been intrigued for quite some with the possibility of starting my own blog, but due to various reasons --technical incompetence, the intense dread of having nothing to say and no one to hear it, and, ultimately, an admixture of a lack of free time and a love for mindless television--I never took the plunge. That is until one startling excursion on the internet when I stumbled upon my good friend Jake's appeal to start a blog. I took the challenge and here I am.

So what might we expect on this very public diary? Whenever I run across something intriguing in my reading, I will try to share it. Whenever a masterful film catches my attention, I may critique it. Whenever certain politicians make crucial theological missteps, I will be likely to comment upon it with swift vengeance. And, most importantly, whenever a torrid television program catches my fleeting attention, I will most definitely dissect it.

Within this eclectic mix of "high" and "low" culture, I hope to develop my own thoughts and continue conversations with friends both near and far. Even as distance has kept me from my close friends in the Garden State of New Jersey or the Independent Nation of Texas, my fondness for our conversations has not abated. Please join in this conversation. I hope friendships will both begin and continue to flourish. All in all, though, I hope that this blog may form one, very small component of our journeys together here on this earth.

Soli deo gloria.