Dec 19, 2014

When the left misunderstands evangelicals

Kim Bobo, founder of Interfaith Workers Justice, says workers' rights activists and other leftist groups have failed to connect to evangelicals because they misunderstand evangelicals:
One of the things that has not been smart has been to lump evangelicals and fundamentalists in with the conservative Christian Right. While a lot of people have been confused on things and connect with the Christian Right on stuff, to lump this huge group of people or write them off as not part of our [workers' rights] movement is dumb.

You see that right now on immigration reform. The evangelical world is completely solid on immigration reform. And at the local level, we see a lot of fundamentalists and evangelicals involved in the work.

We need to understand there are some very well-funded, concerted efforts by right-wing forces to continue to capture [evangelicals]. The Heritage Foundation published a small study guide entitled 'Seek Social Justice.' It argues that the best way to help poor people is to do it through your church, because we are closer to people, and thus the best way to get there is to cut taxes of rich people and give more money to the church. It also makes these wild statements like, 'If people aren't happy with their jobs, they can just go find another one.' Really? It is not a very sophisticated argument.

We should not assume [evangelical Christians] are a static group of people that is owned by the Right Wing. This is a set of folks that have a set of values of their faith that are being contested. I think that we need to be in there contesting for them. It's hard because the Right Wing understands the importance of the faith community in these issues. They put a lot of money into funding right-wing religious organizations; the progressive world doesn't.
It's not exactly what Bobo is talking about, but it's worth noting that even while the Religious Right has maintained its electoral strength -- about a quarter of voters were white evangelicals last election and nearly 80 percent voted Republican -- the minority of evangelicals on the political left has persisted too.

Dec 18, 2014

Stanley Hauerwas on evangelicals

"We are on the same side," Stanley Hauerwas says of evangelicals. What evangelicals lack, he says, is a good, robust ecclesiology:


Hauerwas speaks more on the church, and how it's not a "secondary reality," here

Dec 16, 2014


Published in a Moody Bible Institute magazine in Dec. 1925.

Dec 13, 2014

Hearing the truth in 'A Love Supreme'


John Coltrane's A Love Supreme turned 50 this week. S. Brent Plate writes about the spiritual side of the jazz masterpiece at Religion Dispatches:
Some people don't get it. But for those who do, the religious experience of it all is palpable. Some blend of harmonics and melodics, tradition and improv, mastery and experimentation, makes A Love Supreme one of the great religious movements in modern life. Recorded in a four-hour session on December 9, 1964, with Coltrane on alto saxophone, Jimmy Garrison on bass, McCoy Tyner on piano, and Elvin Jones on drums, the music does not discriminate, inspiring the secular and the spiritual alike.

... What is it about Coltrane, and in particular A Love Supreme, that gets some of us going spiritually? Coltrane was after truth, as one biographer put it, and not necessarily “pleasant listening.” I am attracted to this idea, that truth is difficult and can not easily be possessed. The corollary here is that there is no truth in Musak, and not much in the pop charts. In classical terms “truth” and “beauty” are not interchangeable.

Perhaps more importantly, truth is heard.
In a recent interview, Cornel West called Coltrane "a spiritual giant. He's a love warrior. He's a titan of the soul." West connected the art of A Love Supreme with the theological idea of kenosis, a Greek word the Apostle Paul used to describe how Jesus "made himself nothing." West said that's what Coltrane did too.
He mastered the craft. His technique is beyond description. But he's always speaking from who he is, his kenosis. He empties himself. He gives himself. He uses the gifts that he's honed to try to enable and empower others. And in Love Supreme it all comes together . . . His capacious imagination and his all-embracing sense of experimentation allowed him to listen to sounds everywhere . . . If you really look at the deep expression of humanity in it, Coltrane is a culminating moment.
The anniversary of the album is being celebrated around the country, including in a service at the St. John Coltrane African Orthodox Church in San Francisco, this Sunday.

Dec 10, 2014

Untitled

Stuttgart at night.

Dec 9, 2014

Thomas Kinkade bust stolen

A Thomas Kinkade sculpture valued at $7,500 has been stolen from an Indiana gallery.

The bronze head of Christ, one of a limited edition of 30, was stolen from the Thomas Kinkade store in Zionville, Indiana. The owner of the store says it was probably taken during the rush of shoppers on Small Business Saturday, on Thanksgiving Weekend. There is also a parade in Zionville that day, and the store was busy. The sculpture is over 11 inches tall and weighs about 20 pounds. The theft wasn't noted until the next week, according to the Indy Star.

"I walked in the room where the sculpture was, and there's an empty space," Rhonda Crawshaw, gallery manager, was quoted as saying.

When Kinkade sculpted this figure of Christ, he said the 
tilt of the head "seems to link him to heaven and earth."
Kinkade, an evangelical painter who trademarked himself "the Painter of Light," was beloved by fans and reviled by critics, who dismissed his work as kitsch. Kinkade promoted his work through retail outlets, bypassing the art world and its tastemakers and selling directly to middle America. The approach was profitable. At one point, the Kinkade Media Group was selling work at 4,500 outlets  and earning $128 million per year.

He told the Guardian that, despite being written off by critics, "My art is relevant because it's relevant to 10 million people. That makes me the most relevant artist in this culture."

He told the New York Times, "People who put my paintings on their walls are putting their values on their walls: faith, family, home, a simpler way of living, the beauty of nature, quiet, tranquillity, peace, joy, hope."

At the same time, New York Magazine critic Jerry Saltz used Kinkade as proof that art should not be judged democratically or by the market. "It isn't about the biggest market share," Saltz said. "If that were true then Thomas Kinkade would be the greatest artist who ever lived."

Financial didn't bring Kinkade professional respect. It did bring other problems. He was sued over his business practices, and lost one high-profile suit in 2006, which reportedly cost him $2.8 million. When he died in 2012 at the age of 54 from acute intoxication from alcohol and valium, his wife and girlfriend battled over the more than $60-million estate he left behind.

It also brought thieves: a month after Kinkade died, 40 Kinkade paintings worth an estimated $300,000 were stolen from an art dealer in Clovis, Calif. Police named a suspect in the case, and the man was arrested later that year, but the paintings do not appear to have been recovered.

In the Zionville, Ind., case police don't have any suspects. The best chance of recovering the stolen property might ultimately be Kinkade art dealers. The $7,500 art piece, titled "Prince of Peace," in marked No. 8 in the limited edition series.

Dec 8, 2014

Stealing baby Jesus

Baby Jesus thieves literally take the Christ out of Christmas. When they do, it becomes apparent that the sacred object is also a piece of property, protected by the law that protects property and this whole apparatus that defends Christmas: fences and lights, tracking devices and private security companies, patrolling police and the courts. The commercialization of Christmas is visible here in a way it might not be, otherwise. That's the power of the joke.

Stealing the baby Jesus can seen as a protest against the commercialization of Christmas, which is to say against Christmas, since the theft, as a theft, shows how indistinguishable the commercial and religious aspects of this American holiday really are.

Read the rest of the essay, Thieves Taking the Christ out of Christmas. Literally., at Religion Dispatches.

Taking literalism too literally

William Saletan looks at a detailed new poll on beliefs about human origins and finds, among other things, that biblical literalism doesn't mean what it's commonly thought to mean:
These people affirmed, in one form or another, that the Bible is God's word. A majority, 51 percent of the entire sample, picked one of the top two options. But only 21 percent agreed that everything in the Bible is literally true. Thirty percent chose the second statement: that the Bible is 'without errors' but that 'some parts are meant to be symbolic.' This isn't what secular people tend to think inerrancy means. But it is what a lot of Christians apparently believe.
Part of the issue, here, is the difference between official dogma and what lay people believe. As a LifeWay Research poll recently found, evangelical Christians do not always adhere to the orthodoxy that their churches teach. About 20 percent say God the Father is more divine than Jesus and more than half say the Holy Ghost is not a personal being, neither of which are ideas acceptable to Trinitarian churches, which would include all evangelical ones.

Evangelicals "in the pews" (so to speak, since they're not normally in pews) don't always have as strict an interpretation of biblical literalism as their conservative churches' officially teach or even as strict as one might hear "from the pulpit" (so to speak, since many evangelical churches don't actually have pulpits).

But that's only a small part of the issue. Even the most official and most dogmatic statement of biblical literalism allows for symbolism. The Chicago Statement, for example, is a landmark statement of official conservative evangelical belief in biblical inerrancy, but it doesn't describe it like that.

Article XVIII, for instance, says, "WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture."

This means, specifically, that everything isn't to be taken literally. Historical statements are to be taken as empirical statements of fact, but there's a lot of poetry in the Bible too, and that can be read differently. It's completely possible to believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are inerrant and to think they're not scientific or historical descriptions of what happened.

To quote Saletan again, "This isn't what secular people tend to think inerrancy means." But whose fault is that?

The phrase "literalism" itself is partly to blame. It is misleading. No biblical literalist, reading that Jesus said "I am the door," was ever confused about whether or not that was a metaphor. That just isn't what "literalism" means. It'd be worthwhile to stop using the word. "Inerrant" is better, though that has separate issues that have to be dealt with. As long as "literalism" is used, though, it will be necessary to insist and insist repeatedly that "literalism" shouldn't be understood too literally.

Dec 6, 2014

'We all gonna get it in due time'


Lord have mercy on the land of mine
We all gonna get it in due time
I don't belong here
I don't belong there
I've even stopped believing in prayer

Don't tell me
I'll tell you
Me and my people just about due
I've been there so I know
They keep on saying, 'go slow'

That's just the trouble, too slow

Dec 3, 2014

Apocalypse as an argument for engagement

Matthew Sutton:
Traditionally, people have believed that this expectation that Jesus is coming back would lead to indifference, that people would focus on the next world, they would invest very little in this world. In fact, they’ve done just the opposite. This is a central argument in the book.

D.L. Moody is often used to illustrate the idea of indifference. He famously said that the world is a sinking ship and God has given him a lifeboat and told him to save as many as he could. That’s the idea, that there’s not anything you can do but save those who are sinking. At the same time, Moody turned around and established what were later known at the Moody Church and the Moody Bible Institute, which were extremely active in reform movements during the progressive era. They were focused on issues of crime in Chicago, sanitation, temperance, and in all kinds of moral reform efforts.  
It's clear from Moody to Billy Sunday to Aimee Semple McPherson to Billy Graham to Jerry Falwell, that to believe that Jesus is coming at any moment does not make you less active or less involved in your culture. They say over and over and over again that this is not the case. We just haven’t heard them. Every generation of evangelicals and fundamentalists says it. 
Their apocalyptic theology makes them more active not less.
Read my full interview with Sutton at Religion Dispatches: "It's the Apocalypse, Stupid: Understanding Christian Opposition to Obamacare, Civil Rights, New Deal and More."

Dec 1, 2014

'The church understands the business'

Atheists shouldn't be involved in lynching, according to this July 1903 editorial note from Charles Chilton Moore's atheist newspaper, the Blue Grass Blade

A Kentucky native, Moore was opposed to the extra-legal aspect of lynching, not lynching per se. This was a fairly common moderate position at the time. He does not appear to have been bothered by the racial aspect of lynching or the legitimacy of the allegations and their dependance on racist tropes, but instead by the fact this "justice" was outside the law.

When he wrote about lynching, though, it was less to condemn the practice than it was to attack Christianity. 

Here Moore, who prefers the more aggressive term "infidel" over "atheist," uses lynching to argue against Christianity's claim to morality:


At the time, between 50 and 100 people were being lynched every year.

Nov 28, 2014

Goldwater vs. the religious right

Barry Goldwater did not much like religious conservatives.

Though he's often considered the first of the modern conservatives, playing John the Baptist to Ronald Reagan's Jesus Christ in the story of conservatism's electoral triumph, Goldwater was a libertarian with little interest in the social issues that would animate much of Reagan's base.

A 2006 documentary on Goldwater called Mr. Conservative looked at how Goldwater fought the religious right over the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.

Religious right leaders such as Jerry Falwell sought to exercise their new-found power to keep O'Conner off the court. Goldwater said good Christians and good conservatives ought to repudiate the minister.

"This is not a conservative issue," he said. "Abortion is not a conservative issue."


As the 2016 election heats up, some of these same divisions can be seen in the Republican Party. It is hard to imagine any candidate, even the ones that don't particularly care about the religious right's social policy agenda, taking Goldwater's stance. How things change.

Nov 26, 2014

White evangelicals' changing perspective on the reality of racism

Russell Moore gets death threats.

This is perhaps not that surprising. Moore, after all, is president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He makes it his business to speak on abortion, homosexuality, gender roles, and the separation of church and state, arguing for the conservative Christian position on culturally controversial issues. Yet it's not those issues that bring out the most bile, the most vitriol from people, according to Moore.

It's racism.

"Nothing brings out more hate mail, nothing, than when I say that too many black kids are being shot in America," Moore wrote. "Often this hate mail is accompanied by the sort of neo-Confederate rhetoric that I would have thought would have died out, at least in its explicit form, a long, long time ago . . . . We have come a long way toward racial justice in this country, but we shouldn't be deceived."

The death threats that Moore receives might also serve as an indicator for how far white evangelicals have come on the issue of racism in America. In the wake of a grand jury's decision not to indict Darren Wilson, a Ferguson, Mo., police officer who shot and killed a young and unarmed black man, Michael Brown, white evangelical leaders like Moore have spoken out. They have condemned racism. They have said that those upset by the American justice system's apparent disregard for the lives of young black men are not wrong to be upset, and scared, and angry. They have encouraged white evangelicals to listen to non-white people talk about racism. They have insisted that racism is a real problem.

And that's been controversial.