|
| Things Evangelicalsim LikesThe following list is by an incredible blogger/writer who you can find at http://jenellparis.blogspot.com/
She is a professor who teaches at a Christian college in Pennsylvania. I highly suggest adding her to your list of frequented blogs.
by Jenell Paris
I’m an evangelical first and foremost for cultural reasons. But if pressed to discuss theology, I still uphold Jesus as Lord and Savior and have a high view of the Bible. My credentials are sound. Why, then, do evangelicals keep suggesting to me that my membership in the movement is becoming increasingly tenuous?
Over the last 18 months or so I’ve attempted to publish lots of stuff and have done some public speaking. The stories in this series of posts are from these experiences, but all are anonymized (if you think you recognize yourself, by all means learn from it, but it probably isn’t you – it’s really anonymized.) Some of the pieces discussed won’t ever be published, and others will be or already are…all that to say don’t waste your time trying to figure out the specifics of my stories.
I get along with evangelicals pretty well, but evangelicalism … I think it might be turning on me. The “-ism” suffix indicates a set of beliefs that guide a social movement. Some –isms seem affable, like conservatism or liberalism (pick one) or realism. Others, like authoritarianism or fascism, seem terrible. But they share in common the –ism, the turning of a thought or practice into an ideology that guides a group of people toward some end.
Evangelical beliefs are supposedly widely held by a very large group of people out there called evangelicals. Evangelicals don’t have an organization, a denomination, or an official leader – we exist by power of our “-ism,” and we grant authority – informally - to particular persons and groups to represent the movement. In addition to publicly visible evangelicals, pastors and editors serve as culture brokers, articulating what evangelicals want, ascertaining what pleases them and what offends them, and deciding how much of what they really need they can handle in any given sermon, book, or speech. That’s mostly how I hear about my breaches – from editors and publishers who deliver religious goods and services to large groups of evangelicals, and paid church workers who do essentially the same.
My problem is not with individual evangelicals, and it’s not about core doctrines or church membership or life experience. I’m good on all those counts. If I understand our conflict (and I may not), evangelicalism and I have nine points of disagreement, based on the likes and dislikes, not the core beliefs, of the –ism. I’ll post a series over the next few days about “What Evangelicalism Likes”, and how my scholarly work is displeasing it.
1. Evangelicalism Likes Lots of Scripture in Small Doses
I wrote an essay that used Scripture as a framing theme, but didn’t discuss specific Bible verses as proof of my point. According to expert feedback, my approach was Christian, but not evangelical. An evangelical approach would have listed the six verses that discuss my topic, and articulate pre-existing points of view on each. My PhD in anthropology allows me to develop ancillary thoughts related to culture or humanity, but I am still obligated to write extensively about Bible verses, even though my Bible study would either be derivative of actual Bible scholarship, or wing-nutty because I had pretended to be a Bible scholar.
I argued that the entire Bible addressed my topic, not just the six verses with the topic’s main phrase. This is often perceived by evangelicalism as a liberal approach that allows free-wheelers to generate any theme whatsoever. It is important to remain ‘close to the text’, maybe literally holding the Bible so close that one’s eye can only see one or two verses at a time.
This strikes me as Bible-ism, turning the Living Word into a set of doctrines and ideas that support a religious movement. But please learn from my experience with evangelicalism: if you use the phrase “finger pointing at the moon” to describe the relationship between the Bible and God, you’re sunk.
2. Evangelicalism Likes the word “Jesus”
I based a pages-long analysis on one of Jesus’ encounters with his disciples. Evangelicalism said I wrote about Jesus appropriately, but with insufficient repetition. And in addition to Jesus’ name, his moral prohibitions should have been stated earlier and more often.
Jesus is a historical person whose actions and sayings should be cited often. Fair enough. But in addition, it seems that evangelicalism likes Jesus used as a blank screen onto which we project our notions of perfection, completion, beauty and the like. Evangelicalism may think it lifts up Jesus to use him as a master metaphor, but I’m not so sure. I’d call it Jesus-ism, turning the person of Jesus into an ideology.
3. Evangelicalism Likes Merging Exegesis and Hermeneutics
One commenter questioned my acceptance of liberal scholarship (“reliance upon!”, I said) that distinguishes between what same-sex sex meant in biblical cultures and what it means in our day. Though evangelical scholars separate exegesis and hermeneutics, evangelicalism often doesn’t. Evangelicalism wants the Bible to speak plainly and unproblematically into our culture on every issue currently of interest to us, regardless of differences in language, culture, and worldview between our world and the world of a particular biblical author. It’s also unwise of me to lean so heavily on liberal Bible scholars and secular queer theorists, arguing as I did that it’s possible for evangelicals to learn from their analysis even while disagreeing with their politics.
4. Evangelicalism Likes Believing Things
Evangelicalism likes believing more things rather than fewer things, and believing confidently rather than doubtfully. I articulated beliefs that were conservative enough for one publisher, but not confident enough. Specifically, I acknowledged that I could be wrong about all of it – I wrote that I’ve read the Bible, searched my conscience and learned church tradition, and reached some conclusion that I put forward as my own – Jenell’s views, not God’s views. Evangelicalism would like me to claim them as God’s views. Additionally, I point out the complexity of various sexual identities and how a single message of condemnation doesn’t cover every single situation and disrespects individuality. Evangelicalism didn’t like that either – it wanted me to offer a single message of condemnation in a loving way.
5. Evangelicalism Likes Claiming that the Phrase “God is in Control” is in the Bible
A theologian recently told me that the entirety of evangelical theology is built on the cornerstone of God being in control. His book, in fact, devotes a chapter of biblical exegesis to the phrase which, strangely, is not actually in the Bible. We read words like “powerful”, “I AM,” and “King” and take them to mean “control.” Seems like the control issue might be our deal, not God’s.
Since my triplets died five years ago, I’ve refused to believe that God is in control, and numerous evangelicals have encouraged me to heal, move past anger, and grieve thoroughly (good advice) and readopt the notion that God is in control (bad advice). Surely my personal situation influences the objectivity of my theology (hence my reluctance to speak for God, noted in number 4). Surely my sanity didn’t emerge from grief entirely intact. Fair enough, but still, the Bible doesn’t say that God is in control.
6. Evangelicalism Likes Prioritizing the Superiority of Its Point of View
I wrote about a man who moves from Christian faith to atheism, and evangelicalism worried that I was showing more credence for his point of view than I was defending the Christianity he had abandoned. Indeed, because I was writing for an audience predisposed against atheism, I thought I’d show the marginal point of view in as empathic a way possible. It’s just what anthropologists do – we try to see the world from other points of view, not simply showing how Others are deficient versions of Us. Evangelicalism disagrees with anthropology on this point, preferring to discuss things like atheism, agnosticism and other religions primarily in terms of how they rely on flawed logic and personal immaturity, and how our superior logic and maturity could potentially convert their adherents.
7. Evangelicalism Likes Euphemistic Curse Words
In my evangelical upbringing, heck and darn were dicey, but acceptable. The “dicey but acceptable” category has expanded these days to include suck, blow, and even piss. The real swear words, however, are very bad. Please don’t ask me to list them – I know you know what I’m talking about here.
I tried raising the question of “Why are you so much more concerned with the fact that I wrote “shit” than that there are thousands of children starving to death in our world?”, but as it turns out, Tony Campolo has already ridden that train to its last stop.
8. Evangelicalism Likes Women in Their Place
Recently a powerful evangelical man explained to me how Christian workplaces are beginning to open to women in leadership. The women are nearly ready, he said, and as they continue refining their skills in lower-level administrative roles and in their graduate programs, then the most gifted of them can begin assuming mid- to upper-level leadership roles. This attitude translates into the publishing world as well. Evangelicalism prefers ladies to write for other ladies about lady issues: mothering, wifing, homemaking, homeschooling, beauty, and prayer. Women who write about non-lady subjects are preferred to develop points of view derivative of the men who lead public discourse on the subject at hand. Evangelicalism recently told me that a Famous White Man had already published the definitive book on my subject, and that I should consider whether or not there really is anything more to be said.
9. Evangelicalism Likes Suits
Evangelicalism ascribes authority to men in suits. Rick Warren is an exception, and has really thrown us for a loop by no longer wearing the Hawaiian shirts that we all spent fifteen years trying to get our heads around. It just feels right – words spoken by a white American standard dialect-speaking man in a suit just sound more plausible than the same words spoken by a woman, a person with an accent, or a shlumpy white American standard dialect-speaking man.
I’ve heard evangelical women, on numerous occasions, justify the way they dress at work in terms of how their attire is like or unlike a man’s dark suit. We talk about how we look, and how men interpret how we look, and whether or not we want to be perceived as pretty and why, and why our appearance has to matter so much. It’s not that we’re longing for the authority of the Suit. We’re just trying to get our work done. | | |
| Good Lyrics, Good thought.I can’t direct the universe
I can’t pull off the road and take a rest
I can’t go on for evermore
I can’t refuse the weight of intellect
I can’t avoid the hands of time
I wish her touch was of a softer kind
and if the world decides to melt
there’s nothing i can do to change her mind (fee da da dee)
Imi! Imi! i think i’m getting it (fee da da doh) our heads are a haunt for the ghosts of
alphabet (fee da da dee) our hearts are tigers chasing tigerness (fee da da doh) Imi! Imi! i think i’m getting it tip your hat to the willow tree
resigned to what it can and cannot be all you dreamers wishing for tomorrow
‘life is elsewhere’ only brings you sorrow
By the http://www.myspace.com/guggenheimgrotto.com
| | |
| Money doesn't mean happiness, I still need to learn this.by Eric Weiner
If there is one formula that we all subscribe to — Republicans, Democrats and Independents, alike — it is this: a strong economy equals happiness and, conversely, a weak economy equals unhappiness. There's only one problem: It's not true.
America is four times wealthier than it was in 1950, yet we are no happier, according to many surveys. Wealth, it turns out, is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Beyond a certain point, it takes a lot more money to make us just a little bit happier.
Look, I realize that if you've lost your job, or your home, or your 401k has taken a big hit, you're not likely to be happy. But for most of us, that is thankfully not the case. We might be anxious about the economy, worried, but that doesn't mean we're miserable.
It takes a lot to shake our national happiness. The attacks of Sept. 11, horrific as they were, did not do so, according to surveys conducted shortly afterward. If there is such a thing as a happiness bubble, it is a much tougher, resilient bubble than the stock and real estate ones that have burst recently.
So, if it's not material prosperity, what makes us happy? Study after study has found that the answer is — in two words — other people. Warm, caring relationships; high levels of trust; strong families. None of which, of course, has anything, to do with the Dow or the NASDAQ or — our favorite economic barometer — Gross Domestic Product.
GDP is the sum of all economic transactions in a given year, a giant national cash register that tallies everything. Everything, except — in the words of Robert Kennedy — "the beauty of our poetry, or the strength of our marriages or the intelligence of our public debate."
A few countries recognize this mismatch and are trying to do something about it. The tiny Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan has implemented a policy of Gross National Happiness.
The French and even the dour British are also exploring ways to come up with a national happiness index. There's no reason why we couldn't do the same. It's far from infallible — happiness being such a slippery, subjective thing — but it would do no harm.
I can envision a day when, along with the Dow and the GDP, the NHI, or National Happiness Index, flickers across our TV screens. Perhaps then we'll realize what we've known all along: it's the only number that really matters.
Eric Weiner is the author of The Geography of Bliss: One Grump's Search for the Happiest Places in the World. | | |
| Your Guide to Contemporary Christian MusicBy Dale Peterson
Thank you for choosing to worship with us today. If you are from a church that uses traditional hymns, you may be confused. Please take a moment to read through this guide to contemporary Christian music.
In our church you will not hear "How Great Thou Art," "Wonderful Grace of Jesus," or "Like a River Glorious." (Generally, hymns that have words like “Thou” are not used. They are too archaic and are normally replaced by words like “awesome” and “miry clay”). Yes, okay, we may do "Amazing Grace" or "Peace Like a River" at some point, but as a general rule we avoid songs with too many different verses or those that can't be played easily on guitar and drums.
If you are new to worship here, you may wish to know the reasons for this. One is that deep theological concepts do not belong in contemporary Christian worship. We frown on songs that change more than one or two words for each verse. For example, our version of "Holy is the Lord" consists of repeating that phrase six times per verse and then changing "Holy" to "Worthy," "Mighty," "Jesus" and finally changing "the" to "my." Isn’t that much simpler to sing and easier to remember? The twin goals here are a) repetition and b) chanting quality. We don’t focus on what we’re singing, but how we’re singing it. The main thing is to get that kind of tingly, "olive oily" feeling. Don't worry if you don't get this right away. It will come as you learn to disengage your intellect. Just free yourself. Immerse yourself. Relax.
Nevertheless, a traditional hymn may sometimes be used. For example, we’re not averse to "Holy, Holy, Holy." You may be tempted to sing this as you would have in your former church, but please note that it is sung here with changes, mainly the fact that we repeat it several times and try to sing as slowly as possible, thereby emphasizing the funereal nature of the verse.
Repetition is very important in contemporary Christian music. We repeat: Repetition is very important in contemporary Christian music. Just because a song may have one verse and one chorus does not mean that you only sing it through once. Old hymns have several verses, each of which introduces a new theological concept, and are meant to be sung once followed by "Amen." This is no longer how it’s done. The correct procedure is to sing the identical verse and chorus at least three times. Often it is preferable to repeat the verse two times initially before moving on to the chorus.
Also the worship leader may want to repeat a verse or chorus found in the middle of the song. This is signaled by “calling an audible." When this occurs, the worship leader will say the first few words of the verse or chorus he will be singing next. Sometimes, due to the similarity of the verses, this may be confusing and the overhead projector may flash several pages of text until the correct one is arrived at. Don't panic, this is normal. Just continue singing as though you know the words and soon either the correct slide will appear or a new chorus will begin.
After the verse and chorus are sung at least three times, it is permissible for the song to end. However, the chorus must first be repeated in its entirety, then the last paragraph, then the last line. When singing the last line it is important to slow down a little and look upward. Raising a hand is permissible and often done at this time. This may take a little getting used to but don't worry, if you just join in, in a short time you won't even notice and soon you will forget that you ever did it any other way.
We are just really glad you chose to share the worship experience with us today. Thank you and we hope to see you again soon.
Thank you and we hope to see you again soon. Thank you. Thank. | | |
| Did anyone know that yesterday was Constitution Day?by John Nichols
Constitution Day has arrived without major statements from Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain on the need to restore this country's commitment to the rule of law.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader shows a copy of the U.S. Constitution during a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2008 with third-party candidates calling for greater inclusion of candidates beyond the Republican and Democratic majorities. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)In contrast, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's campaign produced a video statement detailing his commitment to constitutional renewal.
Here's Nader's video, in which he says, "You and I cannot turn our backs on the Constitution, as the two parties have done."
Even more powerful is the statement made by Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee, at the opening of Tuesday's hearing -- which Obama and McCain should have attended -- on how to repair the damage done by the Bush-Cheney administration to the system of checks and balances and our fundamental liberties.
Decrying the administration's record as a "shameful legacy that will haunt our country for years to come," Feingold declared that America needs to "get started right away on this immense and extremely important job of restoring the rule of law."
The Wisconsinite pondered seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency this year but instead backed Barack Obama.
Would that Obama was speaking up as Feingold is on the Constitution.
Here's the Constitution subcommittee chair said in his call to action:
Tomorrow, September 17, is the 221st anniversary of the day in 1787 when 39 members of the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution in Philadelphia. It is a sad fact as we approach that anniversary that for the past seven and a half years, and especially since 9/11, the Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and the rule of law with a disrespect never before seen in the history of this country. By now, the public can be excused for being almost numb to new revelations of government wrongdoing and overreaching. The catalogue is breathtaking, even when immensely complicated and far reaching programs and events are reduced to simple catch phrases: torture, Guantanamo, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, warrantless wiretapping, data mining, destruction of emails, U.S. Attorney firings, stonewalling of congressional oversight, abuse of the state secrets doctrine and executive privilege, secret abrogation of executive orders, signing statements. This is a shameful legacy that will haunt our country for years to come.
There can be no dispute that the rule of law is central to our democracy and our system of government. But what does ‘the rule of law' really mean? Well, as Thomas Paine said in 1776: ‘In America, the law is king.' That, of course, was a truly revolutionary concept at a time when the King, quite literally, was the law.
Over 200 years later, we still must struggle to fulfill Paine's simply stated vision. It is not always easy, nor is it something that once done need not be carefully maintained. Justice Frankfurter wrote that law:
is an enveloping and permeating habituation of behavior, reflecting the counsels of reason on the part of those entrusted with power in reconciling the pressures of conflicting interests. Once we conceive ‘the rule of law' as embracing the whole range of presuppositions on which government is conducted . . ., the relevant question is not, has it been achieved, but, is it conscientiously and systematically pursued.
The post-September 11th period is not, of course, the first time that events have caused great stress for the checks and balances of our system of government. As Berkeley law professors Daniel Farber and Anne Joseph O'Connell write in testimony submitted for this hearing: ‘The greatest constitutional crisis in our history came with the Civil War, which tested the nature of the Union, the scope of presidential power, and the extent of liberty that can survive in war time.' But as legal scholar Louis Fisher of the Library of Congress describes in his testimony, President Lincoln pursued a much different approach than our current President when he believed he needed to act in an extra-constitutional manner to save the Union. He acted openly, and sought Congress's participation and ultimately approval of his actions. According to Dr. Fisher:
[Lincoln] took actions we are all familiar with, including withdrawing funds from the Treasury without an appropriation, calling up the troops, placing a blockade on the South, and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In ordering those actions, Lincoln never claimed to be acting legally or constitutionally and never argued that Article II somehow allowed him to do what he did. Instead, Lincoln admitted to exceeding the constitutional boundaries of his office and therefore needed the sanction of Congress.... He recognized that the superior lawmaking body was Congress, not the President.
Each era brings its own challenges to the conscientious and systematic pursuit of the rule of law. How the leaders of our government respond to those challenges at the time they occur is, of course, critical. But recognizing that leaders do not always perform perfectly, that not every President is an Abraham Lincoln, the years that follow a crisis are perhaps even more important. And soon, this Administration will be over. So the obvious question is: ‘Where do we go from here?' I believe that one of the most important things that the next President must do, whoever he may be, is take immediate and concrete steps to restore the rule of law in this country. He must make sure that the excesses of this Administration don't become so ingrained in our system that they change the very notion of what the law is.
That, of course, is much easier said than done. It's not simply a matter of a new President saying, ‘Ok, I won't do that anymore.' This President's transgressions are so deep and the damage to our system of government so extensive that a concerted effort from the executive and legislative branches will be needed. And that means the new President will, in some respects, have to go against his institutional interests.
That is why I called this hearing - to hear from legal and historical experts on how the next President should go about tackling the wreckage that this President will leave. I've asked our two panels of experts who will testify to be forward-looking - to not only review what has gone wrong in the past seven or eight years, but to address very specifically what needs to be set right starting next year and how to go about doing it.
In addition to the testimony of the witnesses here today, I solicited written testimony from advocates, law professors, historians and other experts. So far we have received nearly two dozen submissions from a host of national groups and distinguished individuals. I want to thank each and every person who made the effort to prepare testimony for this hearing. You have done the country a real service.
All of this testimony will be included in the written record of the hearing, which I plan to present to the incoming Administration. The submissions we have received so far can be seen on my website at feingold.senate.gov. I hope that many of these recommendations, along with the testimony we will hear today, will serve as a blueprint for the new President so that he can get started right away on this immense and extremely important job of restoring the rule of law. | | |
|
