Monthly Archives: September 2011

What should we call you on the air?

30 September 2011

Alright, so there hasn’t been a lectionary post or a links post for a couple weeks.  Mea culpa on one of those, and dos culpas (yes, I know that construction is awful) on the other, since Michial and I usually share the links-posts duties.

But this is a happy occasion!  Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed whom!

Here’s a question for you who listen to the podcast: Homebrewed Christianity calls its listeners Deacons, and I kind of dig that.  Should Christian Humanist Podcast listeners have a name?  If not, why not?  If so, what should it be?

The Christian Humanist Podcast, Episode #58: The Christian Right and the Christian Left

27 September 2011

General Introduction
- NERD ALERT
- The status of the forum
- What’s on the blog?
- We attack Robert Harrison

Christians in American Political History
- Lack of a national church
- The range of framer/father beliefs
- Religion as part of the “scrum”
- Christian abolitionists and Christian slavery apologists

The Social Gospel
- Walter Rauschenbusch
- Deciphering the theology
- What the Social Gospel sought
- Raschenbusch on the atonement
- Christian socialism
- D.L. Moody gets mad
- The dangers of rejection
- Embracing the complaints

The Born-Again President
- Why Evangelicals loved Jimmy Carter
- And why they turned on him
- The silent majority
- Personal and public morality
- Reagan’s rise

The Christian Right
- James Dobson and Focus on the Family
- David’s bonafides
- Public schools
- What have they accomplished?
- Church and State
- Why we need not fear a theocracy
- Daniel, the lion’s den, and civil disobedience

The Christian Left
- Where has it been?
- The Democratic Party at Prayer
- Where are the real leftists?
- Bush and Obama

The Tea Party and the Christian Right
- Who’s screening whom?
- And what is a dominionist, anyway?
- The tone-deafness of journalists
- The Tea Party hydra
- The role of the Internet

Shifting Priorities, Shifting Standards
- Who wants truth and accountability?
- Where principles hold
- Let’s argue about war!

Who’s More Aggravating?
- And what should a Christian attitude toward political parties look like?
- The Kansan concedes critiques of capitalism
- UGA conservatives?
- Gilmour plugs real leftists
- Michial’s overly grandiose pronouncement*

* If any of our listeners were thinking of responding to me on my obvious overstatement—Gilmour and Grubbs have already taken me to task for it. I recognize now, too late, that what I should say is that we should not allow our political parties to define our religion, not that we should avoid them altogether.

Twenty years ago today…

24 September 2011

The album Nevermind by Nirvana and the album Blood Sugar Sex Magik by the Red Hot Chili Peppers hit the music stores.  (For our younger readers, “music stores” were retail locations where one could buy compact discs and tape-recordings of music acts.)  Which one was the better album, and why?

Naked Self-Promotion by Michial Farmer

21 September 2011

I don’t talk much about my music career/hobby on the podcast or the blog, but I’m swallowing my resistance to self-promotion to mention that I have recorded a new single under my “band name,” The Free Soil Party. The two new songs (“Down the Line” and “Marshallville”) are countryish and sad–and free. So if you’re interested, you can get them here. It says “Buy Now,” but the minimum price is set to $0, so feel free to “buy” them for free.

And hey, if you hear something you like, let me know–and pass the songs around.

The Christian Humanist Podcast, Episode #57: Libraries

20 September 2011

General Introduction
-  On professors and assistants
-  Prairie dogs
-  What’s on the blog?
-  More on Chris Gehrz, pietism, and education
-  The Christian Humanist Forum—coming soon!

Our Experience with Libraries
-  Sexy librarians
-  Arcane and hierarchical
-  A children’s endeavor?
-  Emmanuel’s claim to fame

Material Conditions
-  Disposable wealth
-  Political stability
-  Libraries in the ancient world
-  Getting away from wars

Benjamin Franklin
-  What Franklin didn’t do
-  The Junto
-  Public and private libraries
-  Franklin the inventor and booklender

Famous Libraries
-  The Library at Qumran
-  The New York Public Library
-  The Library of Congress
-  The Beast’s library
-  Wearmouth-Jarrow Library

Behind the Counter
-  Library Science
-  Nathan Gilmour, library carpenter
-  Gathering a breadth of interests
-  Contact with the public
-  The best story

Computers and the Library
-  The changing face of libraries
-  How Amazon.com killed the library
-  The role of public programs
-  Are libraries for children?
-  Library book sales

Virtual Libraries
-  The online database and the education bubble
-  The death of the academic journal
-  The internet and the small college
-  A hymn to JSTOR
-  The CCEL
-  Microfiche

No Lectionary Post this Week

19 September 2011

I have to offer a mea culpa this week–I’m preaching in Emmanuel College’s convocation service on Tuesday (tomorrow), and the time that normally I’d devote to writing a lectionary post I’ve decided to spend on revising that homily.  Check back next Monday for the return of the lectionary reflection!

Link, Lank, Lunk

16 September 2011

Thirty Days Goes to Church: A Review of The Devil Wears Nada

15 September 2011

The Devil Wears Nada: Satan Exposed!

by Tripp York

164 pp.  Cascade Books, $19.00

 

I’ve said and written this before, and I still believe it’s true: if you want to find out what’s really important to your neighbor, ask that neighbor about Hell.  I suppose the corollary of that truth is thus: a book about the devil will reveal more of the author than might a book about God.  Going with that major premise, and using Tripp York’s The Devil Wears Nada as the minor, I’d say that Tripp York is a person who loves his footnotes and worries that his reactions to one folly will land him in a second, more foolish folly.  That said, whereas some books leave me wondering whether I live on the same planet as the author, York’s is the sort that makes me think that a different choice here, a switch of opportunities there, and I could easily imagine his life and mine switched.  That makes for difficult book-reviewing, but it’s also the kind of reading that teaches me some things about myself.  Yes, O Reader, this book review will be more autobiographical than most of mine, but it’s because this book (not unlike Ed Cyzewski’s Coffeehouse Theology) holds up a mirror to my mind as much as it gives me a funny book to read.

As the title of my review indicates, York seems to take the structure of his book from Morgan Spurlock’s documentaries: after a brief narrative setting up the quest to find the real Satan, York travels to churches of all stripes, interviewing evangelicals and unitarians, Pentecostals and liberals, all to find the real Satan.  Why find Satan?  Because, as the book’s setup narrative relates, York has become bored with the classical proofs of God and the safe, mostly sterile discussions that philosophical theology inevitably drift towards.  So that he can find an exciting God, he goes where the excitement is: Satan.  Unlike Spurlock, he doesn’t state his rules at the outset, but there are rules governing the hunt nonetheless: for the duration of the book, he must go to a variety of religious and non-religious people, asking them to explain their claims about Satan and following those claims to their logical conclusions.  As he hunts, his aim will always be a face-to-face encounter with Satan, and if the meeting occurs, he will offer his soul in exchange for the immediate repayment of his student loans.

The selling-the-soul riff, like most of the book, has its own theological rationale: York explains, deep in the book, that since he holds to something like a Thomist view of the soul, in which the soul is the ordering principle of earthly (and resurrected) existence rather than a non-corporeal component of the person that one can separate from the body (and thus buy or sell), that he’s in no real danger of losing anything of value when he makes his deal.  If you, O Reader, think that such a chain of reasons strains a bit, even for a light satire, then you’ll likely read as I have read, laughing one moment and calling sleight-of-hand the next.

Whether the dialogue in the book is based on transcripts of recorded conversations or whether York has some Thucydides to him, the conversations with religious people, both conservatives and liberals, are hilarious.  Because York is himself an Anabaptist who wrote his master’s thesis for someone whose name “rhymes with Schmauerwas” (98), he’s just as comfortable poking holes in the liberal (or progressive, if that’s what you’d prefer to call it) platitudes of the Unitarian as the Unitarian tries to reduce Satan to a battle with one’s self (100) as he does with the Satan-around-every-corner claims of the Nazarenes, even one who claims that Satan made the CD skip during the Sunday morning song service (22).  Both sorts of scenes, whether based on real conversations or not, left me laughing hard.  Like a Spurlock documentary, though, York has the particular gift of liking (or really, really seeming as if he likes) people from all sorts of backgrounds.  In other words, one comes away from the encounters with liberals and conservatives in his book with a sense that, as far as York is concerned, these are good folks who can really get things right when they have their moments but who are laboring under some seriously bad ideas.  Think about the way you feel about the pony-tailed Big-Mac addict towards the end of Super-Size Me, and you’ll have an idea of the frame of mind within which York approaches people of different faiths.

And by different, I don’t just mean Trinitarians and Unitarians.  Some of the funniest dialogue is with a self-identified shamanistic healer, someone who takes all of the magick and wiccan business quite seriously, talking him through the nuts and bolts of binding rituals, Tarot cards, and other trappings of the modern-day sorcerer.  But to York’s chagrin, he takes the soul so seriously that he won’t help York to sell his soul in exchange for student-loan money.  And here I reproduce the ending of that interview because, like so many other episodes, it ends with York’s pointing to what is genuinely likable even in a person who could so easily become a stereotype:

“[...]what I have learned through this whole phase of my life, and the one major conclusion out of all these experiences that I can draw, is that although your loans seem uncomfortable to you, and I know this will sound crazy, but greater things are going to come out of experiencing what you need to experience in order to pay them off.”

I stared in disbelief.  Of all the things he had told me, this was by far the least credible.  Yes, I said to him, as I nodded my head in agreement, you are correct–that sounds crazy.”

He laughed and proceeded to tell me I’ll be a completely different person than what I would be if I didn’t have to pay my loans.

I agreed.

I would be a person with money.

I can’t believe it was my conversation with the one-time Satanist turned pagan/shamanistic-healer/drum-playing mystic who would be the one to teach me about character building.

Well, that interview was a bust. (130)

Throughout the book York (whether he’s inventing the dialogue or not) points to these moments when, although out of their gourds when it comes to some very important questions, folks who relate to Satan in very different ways nonetheless manage to say things, unwittingly or no, that teach him something about God.

As I said, this book was to a great extent a mirror for me, seeing as I wrote my undergraduate senior project for one of Hauerwas’s grad students and had as a reader for my master’s thesis in Old Testament a Yale-educated theologian.  But like some mirrors, this one threw things into relief rather than simply reproducing them.  For instance, whereas I tend to read Gospel pericopes through the lenses of N.T. Wright, always situating them within the large narratives of second-temple Judaism and first-century Church, York (in one of his relatively straightforward narrative passages) treats the story of the Gerasene demoniac as merely a “weird story” that tells him something about how people think about demons.  He never mentions the name Legion and its connection the Roman presence, never notes the economic boon that gaining a son back would have been for the family, never notes that the presence of pigs in the Decapolis serves in the text of the gospels as a strong mark of foreign occupation.  He spends four pages on it (80-83) but never sees fit to situate it very explicitly in its own moment.  Such is a matter of emphasis rather than of doctrine, so no biggie.  What troubles me more are brief passages in which York too easily conflates “people who are gay, or are of a different race, nationality, or faith tradition (even within Christianity)” (63).  Those four categories carry with them the complexities of stories, and to list them flatly as elements within a series strikes me as a bit of sloppy writing, perhaps to demonstrate a point about Southern culture but nonetheless sloppy.

By and large, though, I can recommend this book for a good laugh at the expense of the Devil, who demonstrates his powers mainly through heresy (151) but also by standing back and letting us Christians say what we’re going to say about the Devil.  And the real gems in this book are related to but not directly in the plotline of the devil-search; as a set of theological reflections, although I had some quibbles, I enjoyed the book as a whole.  I didn’t come away any more convinced that anyone has anything worth saying about the devil, and perhaps that’s the message of the book: with mouths as big as ours, the only wonder is that the devil has to work very much at all.

Knowledge vs. Truth: A Cry for Help

14 September 2011

As many of our readers know, this is my first semester teaching at a Christian college, and I find myself less prepared than I expected to be. I am mostly ready to teach the material I have been contracted to teach–but the students have thrown me for a loop here and there. I have had students who are concerned with the explicit content of some of their readers–but I understand and sympathize with their concerns. I have had students complain about the perceived difficulty and impracticability of my course–but that’s a universal complaint, and I’ve never taken it particularly seriously. (The student who came to my office to wonder aloud why he or she had to work so hard without a guaranteed “A” dropped my course later that afternoon, and I wish him or her the best in his or her future academic endeavors.)

But one incident has shaken me up, perhaps more than it should. I completely overhauled my English Composition course this year, to the point where it’s now one-half “big ideas” discussion course and one-half introduction to classical rhetoric. As such, we begin with a text that has one foot in each camp: Plato’s Phaedrus. (If you’re wondering where I’m headed, listen to our Richard Weaver trilogy from the spring.) Because I can’t expect freshmen at my college to come in with even a working knowledge of Plato, I begin this unit with a broad overview of the Theory of Forms and its relation to the Phaedrus. Because the topic of this dialogue is ostensibly male/male love, I also give a brief explanation of Greek sexual mores. I went through this latter subject as briefly and gingerly as I could, and I was even careful to bring it back to the New Testament at the end.

The next day, I received a phone call from a student who informed me that he or she had dropped my class; when I pressed the issue, I received three justifications: first, “I don’t see how reading Plato will help our writing”; and secondly, “hearing about all that…stuff doesn’t help my walk with the Lord.” I am willing to disregard the first point, which is the same “I’m smarter than all my teachers” hogwash everyone encounters, whatever and wherever they teach. But the second complaint has shaken me up a bit. Besides the fact that I brought Plato around to Christianity multiple times, I’ve always seen all knowledge as interconnected. There’s no such thing, in my view, as a non-theological fact. Obviously, my student disagrees, so I bring the matter before the narrow wedge of the public this blog serves:

  1. Am I wrongheaded in viewing the conditions of Greek pederasty as related, however distantly, to this student’s spiritual walk?
  2. Is it my responsibility to convince students that this is the case?
  3. How on earth do I go about doing so?
Your comments are appreciated.

Episode #56: Civil Wars

13 September 2011

General Introduction
- Comparing offices
- What’s on the blog?
- Listener feedback
- Punching the tar baby

Absalom, Absalom!
- The roots of civil war in incest
- Popular support
- Mourning for the enemy
- (It’s “Absalon, Fili Mi,” not “Absalon, Mili Fi”)
- The Gore Vidal view of history

Rome
- Which war?
- Law vs. tyranny
- Dictatorship vs. republic
- Is the force of law enough to rule?
- Who rules the Senate?
- Building on history
- American self-invention

The English Civil War
- Monarchy vs. Parliamentary Republic
- James I defends his Imago Dei
- Milton strikes back
- James to Charles to Cromwell to Charles
- Cavaliers and Roundheads

The American Civil War
- The Revolutionary War
- Was Lincoln a tyrant or just a Federalist?
- Why the war wasn’t just about slavery
- The clash of the past and the future
- Were the Confederate generals heroes?
- Randy Newman and the geography of racism

Lingering Effects of the American Civil War
- Help us, Chris Gehrz
- A matter of time
- The English Civil War in popular culture
- Sic Semper Tyrannis!

American Policy and Foreign Civil Wars
- Bad-faith rhetoric
- Why civil wars sometime require intervention
- The role of religion
- Intervention based on president

The Christian Response
- Sons of Cain
- The sword Christ brings
- The Fall
- Civil wars as the ultimate tragedy
- The beginnings of Christianity
- Nathan Gilmour offends everybody


GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Harris, Joel Chandler. The Complete Tales of Uncle Remus. Ed. Richard Chase. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2002.

Livy. The Early History of Rome. Trans. Aubrey de Sélincourt. New York: Penguin, 2002.

Milton, John. The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates. Portland, Ore.: ReadHowYouWant, 2007.

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. New York: Penguin, 1982.

Shakespeare, William. Julius Caesar. New York: Arden, 1998.

Wilson, Harriet E. Our Nig; Or, Sketches from the Life of a Free Black in a Two-Story White House. Seattle: CreateSpace, 2011.

Next Page »