Category Archives: Culture, Society, and Politics

America's Pasttime

Posted on by
Reply

There is a good review at the NY Times today about “Reel Baseball,” a DVD collection of early baseball films. It includes this remarkable plot summary for “His Last Game,” a movie from 1909:

[T]he story is unusually pointed: a Choctaw Indian, the star pitcher of his local (integrated!) baseball team, is plied with drink by a pair of gamblers who want him to throw the game; in an argument he kills one of them and is immediately sentenced to death by firing squad.

But as he is digging his own grave, the townspeople show up and press him into service for a game. He pitches, wins for the home team and then returns to the open grave, where he is summarily executed.

Wow.

Government-Approved Religious Symbols

Posted on by
Reply

After seeing the list of emblems available for military headstones, I’m now wondering why there was such a controversy over the Wiccan pentacle. After all, the list also contains such notable religions as Eckankar (the “Religion of the Light and Sound of God,” led by its Mahanta, Living ECK Master Harold Klemp) and the Church of World Messianity.Update: More information and analysis of the pentacle decision from GetReligion.org.

Jesus and Coca-Cola

Posted on by
Reply

I wish I spoke Italian. There’s a fascinating new film coming out of Italy – 7 Kilometers from Jerusalem. It’s about an Italian ad executive experiencing a mid-life crisis. He decides to go to Jerusalem to clear his mind. While on the literal road to Emmaus, he meets Jesus, and his life is transformed. I can’t wait for this film to come to the States.

The film has been the subject of some very minor controversy. When Jesus gets into the ad exec’s Jeep, he takes a refreshing drink from a can of Coca-Cola. The executive says something to the effect of “What an endorsement!” The Pope is perfectly fine with this – it’s Coke that has concerns. No word yet on how Jeep is reacting.

[HT: Richard Owen via Ruth Gledhill]

Sure we pray, but…

Posted on by
Reply

Twice this week I’ve run across articles in secular magazines that use “praying in church” as shorthand for “you know, that church stuff.” Here’s one, from a New Yorker article about commuting:

The source of the unhappiness is not so much the commute itself as what it deprives you of. When you are commuting by car, you are not hanging out with the kids, sleeping with your spouse (or anyone else), playing soccer, watching soccer, coaching soccer, arguing about politics, praying in a church, or drinking in a bar. In short, you are not spending time with other people.

The other article, the source of which I can’t remember, dealt with what unattractive/unpopular people did with their time prior to modern times. “Praying in church” was one of the options named.

This got me to wondering. What do unchurched people imagine that Christians do in church? “Praying” is probably the only experience that we have in common, which the unchurched would at least partially understand and respect. I’ve heard many people who don’t go to church talk about praying on a regular basis. As far as the other actions in a typical service –

  • corporate singing: General American culture has now limited singing in groups to Christmas carols, and even those are on the decline.
  • a sermon: Probably seen as akin to a college lecture or motivational speaker, at best. Fictional sermons on TV and in movies tend to give a message something like “Be true to yourself” or “God is on your side.” At worst, sermons are imagined to all be like Robert Duvall’s character in The Apostle.
  • tithing: The closest equivalent – a group request for funds for general, unspecified purposes – might be the annual United Way request at the office.
  • fellowship: The Christian friendships I have at church, with fellow members of Christ’s body, who pray with and for me, worship with me, and follow Christ alongside me, are of such a different nature than friendships based on work or common interests that I’m not even sure they deserve the same name.
  • the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper: Do the unchurched even think of this when imagining church?

If you had never attended church, had never even visited one, what would you imagine the experience would be like? Would you even think of it in terms of an organized service? Or would your imagined church be more like one of those cathedral-esque Catholic churches that appear in cop shows so often, in the time between masses, empty except for a few lonely souls, presumably praying?

Review: God's Rivals

Posted on by
Reply

Gerald R. McDermott. God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? 2007, IVP.

McDermott raises an interesting question with his subtitle, and he turns to the Bible and to early Christian writers for some answers. A great idea: in North America, where Christianity is by far the most dominant religion, it’s easy to forget that the Bible and the church were birthed in societies obsessed with a multitude of gods and religious systems. McDermott notes, as well, that Greco-Roman philosophy was itself a religious system, based on the idea that God could be discovered through reason. McDermott devotes one chapter each to surveys of the Old Testament, New Testament, and the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

The insights that McDermott are surprising, at least to me. Using passages such as Daniel 10:13 (referencing the “prince of Persia,” a spiritual being with authority over Persia) and Deut. 32:8-9 (where God allots nations “according to the number of the gods” – McDermott favors “sons of elohim” instead of “sons of Israel” based on manuscript evidence), McDermott argues that the OT hints at the following:

  • YHWH created “the hosts” as spiritual beings with varying degrees of authority.
  • Some of the spiritual beings were given authority over nations or ethnic groups, such as the archangel Michael over Israel.
  • These spiritual beings have largely rebelled against YHWH. This is connected to the fall of Lucifer.
  • Because of their rebellion, these spiritual beings have led men and women to worship them instead of worshiping the true God.

It’s important to note that McDermott only suggests this as a possible reading. The early Christian writers he covers, however, take it as a given that the gods of other nations are fallen angels. In subsequent chapters, McDermott reviews Paul’s famous words regarding principalities and powers, and the varying views of the four early Christian writers he chose. The Christian writers wrestled with the major question of how much truth other religions contain. Their answer, to differing degrees, is “some.” Clement goes so far as to suggest that other religions may be God’s covenants with other nations, analogous to God’s covenant with Israel, covenants which point to and are to be replaced by the new covenant of Jesus Christ.

Two concluding thoughts: First, McDermott wants to recapture the Bible’s and the early church’s view of other religions as having spiritual components. There are real spiritual beings behind these other religions; they are much more than simply “mistakes” or human searches for God. Because they originate with spiritual beings originally created by God, other religions contain some kernel of truth. McDermott writes,

This also means that other religionists are not our enemy…Our real battle, as Paul advises us, is not against human beings – flesh and blood – but against “the cosmic powers of this present darkness” (Eph. 6:12). (165)

Thus, our attitude toward other religions should be respectful and characterized by “patient persuasion, not hostile argument.”

Second, McDermott does an excellent job of bringing early Christian writers to life. Using Eusebius‘ history of the early church, McDermott interweaves the theologies of these writers with their personal testimonies and contexts. He leads me to desire to read them for myself.