keeping an eye on the tree and the forest

Dave's Exegesis is my eclectic site of exegesis on pretty much everything I can think of, whether biblical studies, theology, music, movies, culture, food, drink, sports, or the internet.

Inception: Go See It

07.19.10

This movie has the gravity of a black hole and you will be absorbed into it if you see it in an IMAX theater.  I had very few expectations for it other than some trailors and commercials that I had seen that really didn’t tell what the movie was about.  However, my brother-in-law was so enthralled by the film that he wanted to see it the next night with me and my wife – so we did.  It is a mental mind-job movie that wastes little time but allows you to follow the progression.  I really don’t want to say much more, but I think if people have the opportunity, they should go see it.

Here are some reviews (spoilers included), but read after you watch:

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/17388/180225

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20401172,00.html

http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/movies/16inception.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/07/inception-summers-best-most-disappointing-blockbuster/59855/

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2010/07/26/100726crci_cinema_denby

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128493953

Acting the Fool

07.14.10

My wife loves Susan Wise Bauer, so I perked up when I saw her name on the front page of “Books and Culture”.  Her book review was on “In the Land of Believers: An Outsider’s Extraordinary Journey into the Heart of the Evangelical Church“.  This is a fascinating account of a secular Jew pretending to  convert to an evangelical Christian in order to learn what makes them tick.  The author, Gina Welch, did this undercover work at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, VA (pastored by the late Jerry Falwell).  One wonders if she will do this for other churches or religious groups.

It appears that Susan thinks that Gina missed the point of evangelicalism and mistook it for a mere cultural identity.

The following article is located at: http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2010/julaug/amongevangelicals.html

Undercover Among the Evangelicals

They’re nice, but they don’t know how to think.

Susan Wise Bauer | posted 6/28/2010

In 2005, Gina Welch put on ugly buckled loafers and a loose purple sweater and joined Thomas Road Baptist Church. She also grew out her short hair, gained some weight (her “temporary church body”), and replaced her gold nail polish with “good girl pink.” The dowdiness was strategic: she was trying to look evangelical.

Welch, a self-described secular Jew, had moved to Virginia for graduate school a couple of years earlier. The relocation was a shock. Suddenly she realized that a Berkeley childhood and four years at Yale had given her a slightly skewed perspective on the American religious landscape. Evangelicalism wasn’t a weird local aberration after all; secular America was actually “limited real estate on the vast territory controlled by Christians.”

She decided to investigate that vast territory as an insider. “I wanted to know what my evangelical neighbors were like as people …. I wanted to try to take them on their own terms,” she writes. “I felt I needed to go unnoticed if I was going to get an authentic understanding.” So she went to Thomas Road, pretending to be a new convert, and spent nearly a year living as an undercover atheist. Unbelieving, she was baptized. (The water was cold, and her mascara ran.) Unbelieving, she took the Lord’s Supper. (“I was hungry. Is it wrong to think of this as a refreshment?”) Unbelieving, she went on a mission trip to Alaska and led a little girl through the sinner’s prayer.

That’s a lot of effort, but Welch was driven by a sense of mission, determined to break through the stereotypes and explain to the world that evangelicals aren’t really all that scary after all. In the Land of Believers, the story of the months she spent as a member of Thomas Road, is her manifesto.

“My hope for this book,” Welch writes on her website, “is that it will provide readers with a vivid portrayal of evangelical hearts and minds to eclipse the old, broad caricatures.” By the end of her sojourn, she has developed an affection for her NASCAR-loving, gun-toting, fry-eating evangelical friends—an affection she recommends to her secular compatriots. In the Land of Believers concludes with this earnest plea:

If we don’t love Evangelicals, if we don’t make an effort to understand and accept them, to eat the fish even as it wriggles in our hands, we’ll always be each other’s nemeses. We’ll always be trying to drown each other out. Threaten them, ridicule them, celebrate their humiliation, and you create a toxic dump, fertile ground for a ferocious adversary to rise, again and again. But listen to them, include them in the public conversation, understand the sentiments behind their convictions, and you invent the possibility of kinship.

Apart from the creepy and inexplicable metaphor, this sounds good—until you realize that “understand the sentiments behind their convictions” is exactly what Welch means. She may claim to be portraying the evangelical mind, but her entire narrative is marked by a determined refusal to comprehend that there is one.

“[H]ow was I to find a place among people indifferent to facts?”, Welch writes in her introduction. It is an opinion that never shifts a millimeter. Listening to Jerry Falwell preach about the offense of the cross, she muses: “By embracing the inscrutable cross, Christians were comfortable not fully comprehending the concepts around which they built their lives.” Christian beliefs bypass the brain altogether; the whole notion of the Trinity, she remarks, “reminded me of nothing more than Dracula’s ability to transmute into a bat or mist.” She is tone-deaf to conviction, unable to comprehend that doctrine has anything to do with the behavior of the people she claims to love.

Which is simpler for her, because she can blame everything she dislikes about evangelicals on cultural influence, and cultivate her affection for them without having to think about what they actually believe. “I expected to go in as a sort of anthropologist,” she writes at the end of her experiment:

I expected to discover the sociological underpinnnings for evangelical wackiness. I never imagined that I would feel a kind of belonging. Because beyond basically appreciating my friends as fellow human beings, I finally understood what it felt like to believe you knew something that had the power to improve the lives of others. You felt compelled to share it. And whose fault was their ignorance? It was hard to blame them entirely.

The answer to the rhetorical question is, apparently, the South. In Welch’s world, Christians have “violently side-parted” hair, buckle their belts under ponderous bellies, think airplane travel is exotic, and leave lousy tips. “Could I be a Christian woman to a Christian man?”, she wonders, considering what it would be like to be a real evangelical instead of the undercover atheist variety. “Could I hold his hand and my zipper-bagged Bible as we hurried into church together? Could I look at him across a basket of bottomless fries and be content?”

The answer, predictably, is no. “I preferred analysis, reason, and the satisfying realism of hard truths,” she concludes, heading back towards her secular life. But she’s fairly sure that, one day, her evangelical friends will wipe the grease off their fingers and follow her. Chronicling a heated discussion about the emergent church among her Thomas Road friends, she predicts that resistance to the movement will inevitably crumble in time: “The emerging church was the future for born-agains, as it acknowledged that Christians needed to mold to the shape of the world–not the other way around. Signs of hope were everywhere.”

That’s a staggeringly stupid thing for anyone who claims to understand evangelicalism to write, but Welch is unable to believe that people she likes could really hold well-thought-out, strongly held beliefs that she finds repellent. (“If somehow Evangelicals were forced to co-exist with gay people,” she suggests brightly, “Evangelicals would eventually learn that their ideas about gayness were wrong.”) Ultimately, Welch is able to love evangelicals because she finds their identity in their culture, which spares her from having to cope with stubborn things like belief.

At the end of In the Land of Believers, Welch quotes a commencement address by David Foster Wallace, in which Wallace recommends that his listeners cultivate peace with others by choosing to see “the mystical oneness of all things deep down …. Not that the mystical stuff is true. The only thing that’s capital-T true is that you get to decide how you’re gonna try to see it.” This, Welch explains, became “the basis of my love for Evangelicals: I was going to choose to see the mystical oneness. And once I started to see it that way, loving them wasn’t very hard to do.” Loving them while grappling with the reality of their beliefs might be a little bit harder.

Despite its many failings, In the Land of Believers demonstrates just how illusory our peace with the secular world can be. I don’t wear my pants too low (in part because I give the bottomless fries a miss) or speak with a banjo twang; I rack up my share of frequent-flyer miles, wear black when I’m in New York, and leave decent tips. In my professional world, I go undercover just as effectively as Welch did at Thomas Road. The people I work with know I’m a Christian, but I don’t look blue-collar Virginia.

Welch’s book reminds me that this probably allows my colleagues to forget about the awkward beliefs I hold. If I spoke of the Trinity, of Christ, of sin and atonement—and if they listened—I suspect that the result would not be love and mystical acceptance. It would be appalled surprise, followed by rapid retreat.

Susan Wise Bauer is the author most recently of The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade (Norton), the second installment in a projected four-volume history of the world.

Kids before Marriage

07.09.10

For sure, the trend of the last 20 years has been to have children and then think about marriage in the future. With the divorce rate what it is, it’s no wonder. This is a good profile piece on the issue. At the end of the day, to me it seems like marriage is becoming like circumcision – a covenantal idea of the past that people have a hard time justifying for the future. Here is the link: http://www.wbur.org/npr/128265730

All Things Considered

Kids First, Marriage Later — If Ever

LISTEN NOW
By Katia Riddle
July 4, 2010 12:00 AM

Federal data from 2007 says 40 percent of births in America are to unwed mothers, a trend experts say is especially common in middle-class America. In one St. Louis community, the notion of getting married and having children — in that order — seems quaint.

For most of their relationship, Nathan Garland and Brianne Zimmerman have marked their anniversary by New Year’s Eve, 2001. They say that was the day they both knew they had found the one.

“It seemed obvious to me the first time we kissed,” Garland says. “Just kind of connected, right then. It really was that obvious.”

They moved in together shortly afterward. They decided to have a baby a few years later, but had no interest in getting married.

“We didn’t feel we were ready for it at that time,” Zimmerman says. “We just thought it was a piece of paper and it wasn’t that big a deal to us. We lived like we were married already. So we split bills and took care of each other.”

Neither of them can exactly articulate why marriage didn’t seem right at the time; they both just say emotionally, they weren’t ready. Although their grandparents dropped a few hints, they didn’t feel pressure to get married.

“Just because you have a child, why do you have to get married, too?” Garland says. “They’re almost two different questions.”

Then came Christmas 2008. Almost eight years after they got together, they say, they were finally ready to answer that second question. Garland wrapped up an engagement ring for Zimmerman and put it under the tree. Christmas morning, he had their son Noah hand her the ring. They were married last October.

Today, the newlyweds are hosting their son’s birthday party at a bowling alley in St. Louis. Garland helps Noah put on his bowling shoes. More than two dozen of his 6-year-old friends and their parents have come. Among these parents, the gap between marriage and family seems normal.

An Overrated Institution?

Colleen Segbers stands with her daughter, Gwen. She confesses that she didn’t mean to get pregnant six years ago.

“It was an afternoon of Budweiser beer and the hot sun,” she laughs. “It happened. It was OK.”

After her daughter was born, Segbers did marry Gwen’s father. She loves her husband, she says, but they didn’t get married because they had a baby together or even because they were in love. They did it so she could have insurance. A friend of theirs got ordained online and married them in his living room.

“We didn’t have a wedding. I don’t have a ring, I don’t have a dress. We just signed the paper and I was like, ‘OK, cool.’”

Although she and her husband and daughter live together, Segbers says she doesn’t really think of herself as married. She thinks marriage as an institution is overrated. But some of these parents say they do believe in marriage.

Once Is Enough

“People who say that they don’t want to get married, I think they’re lying to themselves,” Lexi Campburn says as she chases her son Zane around the bowling alley.

“Everyone wants to, you know, fall in love and have the fairy tale,” she says. “Of course, I want to get married someday. But it has to be the right person, the right time. Everything has to be right.”

Campburn says she didn’t mean to get pregnant when she was 26. She considered marrying Zane’s father, then decided against it. Her reason is echoed by many parents at the party:

“I don’t want to get married and then divorced. I’m only going to do it once,” she says.

Many of these parents are children of divorce — born in the early ’80s when divorce rates peaked. Today, these parents say they’d rather raise a child alone or with multiple partners than risk putting that child through a divorce. In general, divorce rates are at their lowest level in more than 35 years right now.

“If we’re 50 and still together I told her I’d put a ring on her finger,” says Rich Catlet. “But until then, probably not.”

His girlfriend, Melissa Schutte, is pregnant and due in just a few weeks. They’re so adamant about not getting married, they decided to register at City Hall as domestic partners instead. It’s a license that gives them nearly the same legal benefits as being married. It’s a slight difference but a big relief to the couple.

“Marriage is like the big commitment thing,” Catlet says. “Who knows? It’s good right now; it’s great right now. We’ve got a kid we’re going to love for the rest of our lives. So why mess with a good thing?”

Kids Today

Back at the birthday party, Noah tears open his presents. Becky and Brooks Garland, Noah’s grandparents on his father’s side, have been married for 42 years. Becky says young people are hesitant to get married because they expect too much out of marriage and their partners.

“What I see today is too much instant gratification,” she says. “That is, if it doesn’t work immediately then you put it down and go to something else.”

The Garlands agree on another point: They say children aside, marriage is worth it.

“I can’t even imagine not having Becky there,” Brooks says. “I can’t even imagine it.”

The Garlands say they’ve made it through some very rough times — so rough, in fact, that they actually split up for a few years. But Becky says getting back together and sticking it out was the right decision. She says there are tremendous benefits to being married for 42 years.

“I think the biggest thing is not being alone,” she says, “in the sense of having somebody whose mind and soul, I guess, touches yours.”

When the parents at this birthday party get to be Brooks’ and Becky’s age, it’s unlikely they’ll have a story like this. What’s more likely is that they’ll have had a number of serious partners, and possibly some children. And they may have eventually been married.

As to what kind of consequences this new concept of marriage will have for the next generation — a group of children who may grow up with several parental figures instead of just two — Becky says she worries about it. Experts say it’s too soon to say what the effects will be. We’ll have to ask these children in 20 years.

Gordon-Conwell Opens New Chair in Early Christianity

07.08.10

This is very timely since the modern, popular perceptions of Christian origins are pretty one-sided. Early Christianity is poorly understood (embarrassingly) and under valued in our churches, and this ignorance is very easy to capitalize on (enter Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan). I hope that in endowing this chair that perhaps it might prompt GCTS to require a class on early Christianity for Master of Divinity students beyond the 2 church history classes.  Don’t forget to listen to the interview below.

Donald M. Fairbairn, Ph.D., has been appointed to the newly endowed Robert E. Cooley Chair in Early Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, effective fall 2010.

Since 1999, Dr. Fairbairn has taught at Erskine Theological Seminary in Due West, SC, most recently as Professor of Historical Theology. While there, he taught courses including historical and patristic theology and church history. Dr. Fairbairn also taught for several years at Donetsk Christian University in the Ukraine, and he teaches occasionally at several North American and European seminaries and Bible schools. He has authored books in Russian and English, most recently, Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers, and has written many articles and book reviews on patristics, Eastern Orthodoxy and Christology. He holds an M.Div. from Denver Seminary and a Ph.D. in patristics from the University of Cambridge.

“Dr. Fairbairn brings expertise in the patristic period, expertise rarely found in evangelical institutions of higher learning,” says Dr. Timothy Laniak, Dean of the Charlotte campus of Gordon-Conwell. “As a noted scholar and excellent communicator, he will provide reliable information about these controversial centuries to students and the broader public and will play a strategic role in the development of the Robert C. Cooley Center for the Study of Early Christianity, a Center devoted to exploring the historical foundations of the Christian faith.”

The Robert E. Cooley Chair in Early Christianity is an endowed faculty chair that provides Gordon-Conwell and the wider community in the Southeast with a senior scholar in the area of patristics and historical theology. This chair will allow the seminary to contribute careful scholarship to the growing interest in the early church.

Source: www.gcts.edu