Follow me on Twitter

Losing Religion; Finding Art and More

    

Yesterday, my husband and I attended a book signing by former L.A. Times  journalist William Lobdel . The signing took place at a book store in historic Clinton, New Jersey .  The book (Lobdell’s first) is Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America—and Found Unexpected Peace . We were late for the noon event because we love Sunday worship so much, we were unwilling to skip it or tear ourselves away before communion as we’d planned. I note this because it illustrates how good people who go through similar crisis of faith often come out of them with very different conclusions. 

Lobdell’s book is dedicated to both his family (a wife and four sons) and those wounded by "the church." He and I lost our [investigative] religion journalism virginity simultaneously, though not collaboratively. We both thought we’d do God’s work by reporting on (or informing on) the seamier underbelly of American Christianity … only to find that corrupt subjects and their supporters often seemed empowered by the exposes’ written about them while we and their victims were accused of being tools of the devil.  

I read with interest his article on Trinity Broadcasting Network when I literally lived around the corner from the media giant’s world headquarters. I had visited the glittery venue myself for an essay on television indecency , and was consequently excoriated for inferior faith by Joni Lamb , one of TBN’s competitors. I noted Lobdell’s disillusionment with evangelists Greg Laurie and Franklin Graham when he wrote the L.A. Times  essay about his loss of faith  that led to Losing My Religion . Lobdell wondered how these and other reputable evangelicals regularly appeared on TBN despite the blatant charlatanism and allegations of sexual misconduct by its founder. I wonder about such things too. I wonder also what these evangelists and their Catholic counterparts think their role is in the deconversion of the Lobdells of this world.

During the Q&A, I asked about his wife, whom he followed from evangelicalism into Catholicism. He said that as he began to come home with increasingly egregious stories about her denomination, she too abandoned faith. As to their four children, I don’t know. One assumes their parents’ deconversion means something to them.

"Crunchy Con" Rod Dreher  also reported on the Catholic pedophilia scandals (as a Catholic) and later converted to Orthodoxy . Recently he opined that it may indeed be better for some scandals to remain hidden because exposure is so destructive to the faith of ordinary believers. I disagree with him for reasons Lobdell mentioned yesterday. Complicit silence breaks faith with victims, both those who speak up and those who don’t. As Christians, we are especially called to care for "widows and orphans"—in other words, those most vulnerable to abuse (James 1:27 ). We are also called to walk in the light (1 John 1:7 ); I take this to mean a commitment to truth, not lies.

Lobdell said that he’d inevitably be contacted by other alleged victims after his stories would run. They’d be particularly incensed if a perpetrator publicly downplayed his guilt. Dreher writes that he’s been tempted to report on Orthodox corruption, but has decided that his own and his family’s faith can’t handle it. This is a luxury many are not afforded: police officers, pastors, teachers, nurses, parents, other idealistic religion reporters. I trust that God will make right in the end that which is not made right in this world. I eagerly await the day when mercy and justice will visibly kiss. I know they did so on the Cross, but I long for faith to be made sight.

On the jacket of Lobdell’s book is an endorsement by John Huffman, chairman of the board of Christianity Today  and a hero of Lobdell’s. Huffman writes,

William Lobdell has written a heart/mind/soul-wrenching spiritual autobiography. He has been inspired by followers of Jesus who have served their Lord with integrity. But he has also been devastated by observing, up close, the ugly, sinful underbelly of a critical, self-serving, institutional and individual religion. This is a must-read filled with warnings and wake-up calls to those of us in leadership positions. I respect Bill for his honest reporting of his odyssey to this point and pray that someday there may be a future book, just as honest, with a grace-filled conclusion.

Lobdell said that before he lost his faith, he requested a change of assignment at the L.A. Times . He "couldn’t take another story." When he publicly confessed his deconversion, he expected criticism. Instead he received 3000 emails, the most his newspaper had ever received. Many of them expressed empathy and support. Mine was among them.

I’m glad to finally possess a copy of Losing My Religion . I think I’ll find it oddly comforting. Along with it, I’ve just begun reading Becky Garrison’s 2007 offering, The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith . Garrison is another journalist who shines her spotlight on holy dirt. In this book she turned it outward. Lobdell doesn’t fit within her field of vision though. He is more a Materialist than an anti-Theist and, despite the blazing A  logo on his blog, he sounds more pink agnostic than bright red atheist. Could there yet be a reconversion sequel in his future? Believing supporters are praying so. If our prayers evaporate unanswered, no harm done, right Bill?

In addition to these atheist tomes that coordinate nicely with A Secular Age , I’m reading a book Christianity Today editor-at-large Rob Moll sent me some months back. Rob and I became friends after he wrote an expose’ on my former church group  and was excoriated for it in the blogosphere. We lost our Christian [investigative] journalistic virginity together on that one. Although he’s much too young for such a heavy topic, Rob is now writing a book about Christian dying that will no doubt be excellent. His research led him to send Jeff and me Walter Wangerin Jr.’s Mourning into Dancing . I find most grief books beside the point, but I do pick this one up sporadically and glean some comfort from this pastor’s experience with those who’ve suffered devastating loss. Anger and disillusionment are common features of grief. People of faith cannot thrive there though. Nor can they thrive in a religious gutter. It’s good for them us to climb out and breathe air that’s fresh and clean.

I felt on the verge of tears through much of Lobdell’s talk. His story tapped into a place of deep pain for me. The betrayal. The lost idealism. The impact on my family (with loss of hope and life rather than collective loss of faith). He described the molestation victims he had gotten to know through his work as having "hollowed out souls." I resonate with that description. My mother and I were talking recently about that part of us that died with Gabe. How, in some measure, we’re just biding our time now until this life is over. Lobdell believes that when it’s over, it’s over. There will be no reunions. No justice. No mercy. I find those thoughts both unbearable and untenable. Unbearable for obvious reasons, untenable because there is too much mystery and beauty in the world to believe it has no ultimate meaning.

After the book signing and a simple, satisfying lunch of lentil soup and egg white/asparagus/Swiss cheese omelet, Jeff and I happened upon the Hunterdon Art Museum , which is housed in an old stone mill. The building itself is a work of art and the "Cutters" exhibit was literally inspiring. When we came home and showed our son photos of the various cut paper and steel art objects, he got out the previously neglected daily origami calendar I had bought him for Christmas and produced a collection of his own. I was thus prompted to thank God not only for art, but for honesty, comraderie and faith. These are gifts that science may describe, but which it cannot explain. Sorry Bill.

 

Update: The Library Journal description of Mourning into Dancing as found on Amazon.com :

Wangerin, a Christian minister and imaginative theological writer, provides a splendid description of death, grief, and the feelings of those who mourn the separation. Wangerin includes four types of death: the primal fall or original sin over which human relationship with God was broken; the numerous "deaths" we each suffer on earth, as typified by the biblical story of the prodigal son; individual bodily death; and "dying absolute," or spiritual death. His primary focus, however, is the small deaths in daily life as typified by one family’s grief. Wangerin depicts human feeling convincingly; his theology that all death is related to the first (primal fall and original sin) supports his hopeful and confident faith in the purpose of grief as leading to renewal, healing, and resurrection. For public and seminary libraries.

Update 4/8/09: My review of Losing My Religion is here, at Her.meneutics .

 2 Comments

 Posted on March 16, 2009 by

 Art, Beauty, Books, church life, Community, Culture, Ethics, Faith, grief, Journalism, Leadership, Public Square, Redemption, Science, Theology, Walkin' the Talk

     , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Fragility of Truth and Other Inescapable Facts

Let’s get this out of the way first: Truth itself is not fragile; our possession of it, our interpretation of it, the role it plays in our societies is fragile. So said Simon A. Levin, the director of Princeton University’s Center for BioComplexity, as he was introducing Sarah Jones Nelson, director of the Princeton Project on Fragility. 

Jones Nelson began by saying that “Truth has faced adversity since antiquity and the known story of Truth as justice has taken many twists and turns along the way.” Her thesis is that “the quest for Truth is fragile,” like our species, because “the processes of verification are complex” and “irrefutable verification often exceeds our capacity to conceptualize what is even vaguely Truth—in dreams for example, or in the deep past. This is why authentic perception of Truth often eludes us.”

She posed a series of questions:

*What is Truth? That Pontius Pilate was more brutal than the New Testament conveys is historical truth by inference. “Corresponding records to reality may be inferred as credibly factual because credible evidence supports it [reality?].”

 *What about philosophical truth related to values? A beautiful narrative or ancient Hebrew poetry, for example. “Here the question of verification is more elusive than historical and scientific truth, which have testable means for verifying data.” But even in astrophysics, “observation is strongly theory dependent.” The magnitude of the universe makes it impossible to observe apart from theories of what one is seeing.

* Then there’s the question of what facts really are. There is a “dichotomy between valuatively deductive statements of fact” and “factually deductive statements of value,” such that it makes Truth “more complex than the known facts that comprise it. The perception of Truth signifies two universes of reference.” “Robust categories of Truth require a robust conceptual language “… Logic and syntax are foundational to the formation of the disciplines. “New fields generate new concepts of fact value and the corresponding Truths are fragile until they are credibly understood and when necessary verified by inescapable data.”

Our speaker hearkened back to Plato and Aristotle for a case study. She said Aristotle and Plato held different conceptions of Truth, and although these conceptions created the “first world synthesis of Truth,” one must note that its moral conception included both slavery and the subjugation of women. “Social norms emerging from ancient cultures continue to inform the contemporary open question of justice and the perception of reality that Truth is a fragile goodness.” … Students at Plato’s academy came from families where educated slaves had taught them their history of the Trojan War and prepped them for their first class in which Plato would be denouncing Homer’s heroization of Odysseus, the consummate liar” and “perilous twists and turns when lying meant outwitting and surviving better liars, thieves, monsters and angry gods.”  She is “certain Plato was thinking of Homer when he banished poets from public” saying, “Pythagorean truth was just about all he could handle.”

We returned to Princeton, with our guide calling it the “Athens of the Eternal Now.” She posed three questions (with passing reference to others, such as those related to establishing the historicity of ancient manuscripts).

1. What is truth?

2.  What is goodness, justice, beauty?

3. What is love?

Classical Athens “indelibly invented formal categories of human experience” and the foundations of democracy are as “fragile as documents of antiquity.” But, Truth can be found [emphasis mine]:

1. “Democracy functioned publicly by means of consensus and agreement, in which the role of women was manifestly paradoxical.”

 2. “Consensus was built upon common persuasion in an inextricable unity of religion, politics and theatre. Belief flowed from the will of godesses and gods.”

 3. “Slavery was thought to be a manifestation of the cosmic order. ”

“Plato might possibly have understood mathematical truth, but seemed to have been misguided by many of our standards of justice, equality and the rule of law. Clearly some principles do and must change to accommodate ever more humane interpretations of cognitive, moral and natural law. Furthermore moral pluralism is a fact of historical truth, raising deeper questions for criteria for explaining identity and difference, for distinguishing good history from good metaphors and the ends and origins of any phenomena. Take the misguided application of Christian eschatology to Big Bang cosmology. In her view this is “as preposterous as Paul the Apostle telling [director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science] Paul Steinhardt how to do pure physics…” She attributes the problem to “ongoing category mistakes from which Galileo and countless others have suffered enough.”

She asked:

* What is scientific truth? The answer has evolved with new discoveries: general relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory,etc. “These matters prove there are deep limits of intelligibility defining the parameters of open questions.”

 * Is altruism rational? “How are group formation and identity internalized so that altruism becomes reciprocal, as good for self as others, as the Dalai Lama teaches in the traditions of ancient Buddhism.” “Poetry in Second Isaiah  is one of many examples from Hebrew Scriptures mandating universal law to care for what is other than the self ” It is “vindication of the unselfish.” She asked, “What does this say about the durability of altruistic values?”

 * What is moral truth? “We are asking whether or not it is viable to generalize reciprocal altruism on large scales. … Cooperation is fundamental to survival of the species. … We are seeing that cultural selection is a fragile phenomenon, but the institution of stable cultural practicing is robust on a small scale in courts of law and renaissance art guilds, for example … with strong constraints on membership, codified by statute. The resulting language of selective morals, of loyalty, of honesty stabilizes cultural selection groups where membership is identity … based upon trust, the single most important element of a good society. Fragile sensibilities can flourish in good faith.” [emphasis mine]

 * What is personal human truth? “The Fragility Group is engaged also in reflection on the fragility of human societies. Stable systems share an emerging process of adaptation. … Formal systems of adaptation are robust at all levels of complexity. … We examined the  history of cultural selection in which dynamical emergence occurs. For instance, in the practice of medicine, in a durable form of religious art and scholarship. This in turn raises the open question of causes for the emerging of Athenian democracy and theatre from which we can learn about the early mechanisms of psychology, as Freud did from Oedipus to Psyche.”

 * What is political truth? “[Political scientist] Maurizio Viroli… introduced the Fragility Group to Plato’s analysis on the “goodness of political institutions being fragile for two reasons. Because passions like ambition and avarice erode goodness. And because time erodes goodness by weakening memory and true knowledge of the self.” Civic love, agape, keritas [sp.?]. “Is a form of reciprocal altruism and self love consistent with love for your neighbor as commanded in ancient Greek, Hebrew and Roman manuscript traditions? Love is a virtue and a formal energy.”

“In politics,” she said, “human memory is a possession of Truth that can be destroyed by war, genocide, famine and torture.” eg. “trivializing the Geneva Convention.”  “By contrast our fragile acquisition of the Pythagorean Theorem, a durably beautiful truth, like music, unchanged by events, flourishes in memory as if by miracle.”

We all undoubtedly have open questions that require Truth gleaned from a multiplicity of disciplines. “We are witnessing a dynamical explosion of information with no predictable outcome as to how these fields will combine intelligibly, as the Internet makes the printed media ever more fragile.” Historian Anthony Grafton demonstated this fact to the group. “The Project on Fragility is giving birth to a renaissance of clarity and renewed understanding of interdisciplinary approaches to curricula. We are creating a remarkable level of intuitive coherence.” The goal is collaborative problem solving on a grand scale, the likes of which Jones Nelson says has never before occurred.

In conclusion, our prophet assured us that “Truth itself is robust. By contrast, possession of Truth is fragile” [emphasis mine], because “what we know we can forget,” eg. what we know about slavery and the Holocaust. “The imperishable task of remembrance must be protected by the inescapably durable fact that Truth itself is something sacred.” The “survival of the species” demands that the collaborative search for Truth continue. The alternative is “moral paralysis.”

With a nod toward students, she advised: “You needn’t believe in God to act with moral integrity. Nor does belief in the existence of God make you an imbecile incapable of rational thought simply because the proofs are inconclusive in the minds of others.  And if anyone says you don’t fit in because you differ, be a good skeptic and remember you’re right to take it as a compliment.”

As usual with these events, the Q&A was nearly as interesting as the lecture. The first commenter compared the talk to a romantic poem that he could not readily interpret. What was the point, he wanted to know. A mathematician noted that Truth in mathematics isn’t as absolute as people imagine. He said that in order to define Truth in mathematics, one must get outside its language. He called this a “sobering reality.”

A student then asked if the anti-intellectualism of American culture demonstrates the fragility of knowledge. He advocated a hierarchy of disciplines in regard to Truth. Of course, he wanted the empirical disciplines at the top and poetry at the bottom. Jones Nelson marginally agreed with his assessment. Fragility Project group member and Pulitzer Prize winning poet C.K. Williams was in the audience. I caught up with him at the reception. He disagreed with the subjugation of artistic truth to the empirical, as did I. One can find Truth in artistic forms that is obscured in empirical expressions.

A man to Williams’ right wanted to know if fragility is a problem or a solution. Obviously in the case of slavery, it’s a solution while in the case of Holocaust denial it’s a problem. Jones Nelson said the conversation itself is somewhat fragile, because there’s never before been one like it across disciplines. I find this claim difficult to take seriously. Perhaps she meant in a formal sense, one that requires sponsors and funding, which the group is seeking. The Vatican asked her to launch this project … long before Pope Benedict reinstated the Holocaust denier(s)… but after she had spoken at the Vatican about Holocaust denial.

Finally a student asked what my husband called the Philosophy 101 question: Does Truth exist at all?  Here Jones Nelson mentioned the Deconstructionists, sounding at first as if she was affirming them, even though she concluded by saying she believes Truth does exist, eg. historical Truth verifiable by archaeological evidence.  She unfortunately qualified this statement by saying that whether or not Truth exists for oneself is entirely subjective. I asked her later about the Deconstructionists, telling her that my philosopher friends tend to dismiss them outright. She acknowledged this and tied the early Deconstructionists to Holocaust denial. She relegated the “harmless” ones to the 1980s like bad hairdos. Leave it to us evangelicals and post-evangelicals to be 30 years behind the times in philosophy  philosophical fads, as well as just about everything else. Humility. We should be first in that.

For years, my husband has been advocating in private conversation just this approach to problem solving. He asked the speaker if the group won’t ultimately have to come to some consensus about Truth in order to accomplish anything tangible. She didn’t really seem to have an answer. In fairness, the question was asked over a delightful banquet of salmon, steak, asparagus, cheeses, chicken piccata, eggplant rollitini, raspberries, etc. and amidst a small crowd of inquirers.

The Fragility of Truth and Other Inescapable Facts. It’s a lovely title and a fascinating topic that was elegantly outlined. There was free food and, later, a martini crafted and named just for me. Not a bad way to spend an afternoon! Here’s to hoping the Princeton Project on Fragility leads somewhere.

 Posted on February 17, 2009 by

 Ethics, History, Philosophy, Public Square, Science, Theology

     , , , , ,

The Short Term Future of Stem Cell Funding

 California Stem Cell Report appropriately opines …

As California’s public universities are turning away students and state cash is being cut for projects ranging from research labs to affordable housing, the California stem cell agency is on track to give away $66 million later this month.

The awards will come following CIRM‘s handout of more than $19 million last month.

No one – except for those congenitally opposed to hESC work — is contending that all these millions are going to unworthy scientists or to dubious research. But the CIRM giveaways stand in marked contrast to what is happening to the rest of the state in the light of its $40 billion budget crisis.

If CIRM were, say, part of the state Department of Health, chances are good that it would not be able to spend taxpayer money so freely.

The disparity raises major public policy issues about the use of ballot initiatives to promote and protect various causes. Should the elderly and poor see their much-needed assistance and medical care cut while cash flows unimpeded, in this case, to researchers, some of whom are already exceedingly well funded?

A ballot initiative, Prop. 71, is just what created the $3 billion stem cell effort in 2004 – not carefully crafted legislation hammered out over months with all parties having their say in public. The measure was drafted in secret by CIRM Chairman Robert Klein (with the help of a couple of others he rarely acknowledges) and placed on the ballot with a signature-gathering effort that probably cost $1 to $2 million. (That is the most common way of placing an initiative on the ballot in California – hiring firms that specialize in such efforts and paying them on a per signature basis.)

It’s an especially timely thought given that President Obama made this oblique statement in his Inaugural Address:

We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.

 … leaving both Ted Olsen and me wondering if he’s about to upend Bush on federal funding for Human Embryonic Stem Cell research  … when there ain’t no money for nothin’.  But then, there’s still Dickey-Wicker to contend with.

 Posted on January 20, 2009 by

 Democracy, Politics, Public Square, Science

     , , ,

Thinking about Religion, Belief & Politics @ Princeton

The inaugural Danforth Lecture at Princeton University was a lucky little feast for the brain Thursday afternoon. CUNY anthropologist Talal Asad gave a breathtaking talk on “Thinking About Religion, Belief and Politics.” I hadn’t expected Charles Taylor to be the subject of Asad’s elegant dissection, but there it was: A Secular Age fileted and served on ice. 

This eminent scholar/author said Taylor’s seminal work deals with personal crisis of belief that are insufficient to the global crisis of our time. He argued that beliefs formed through external acts of devotion and training are not inherently coercive, but can lead to authentic faith and the formation of a moral personality. Asad appeared to be making a case for non-Judeo-Christian, or, at least non-Protestant, religious influence in the public square. He spent precious little time talking directly about politics, but instead drew an entertaining connection between the development of public ventilation systems and narcissistic notions of belief.

Asad objected to an audience member’s suggestion that he dismiss religion outright as a dangerous force that wants to control other people’s bodies. He said the secular/religious debate is tired and suggested that market forces can be at least as coercive as religion. He cited coercion of women’s bodies as an insightful example. 

Although the lecturer expressed faith in liberal democratic values, he has comparatively little faith that states can effectively implement those values. He concluded by confessing doubt that mankind will see the next century. With such apocolyptic vision, one wonders where he gets off saying personal faith is insufficient to the times. Perhaps he thinks no other kind will hold sway in coming decades.

Ah well. My momentary USC advisor Diane Winston tipped me off to Princeton Religion Department public offerings. I had been lamenting the loss of such local events at USC and UCI, but found this first lecture a more than adequate substitute. Thanks to Ed Gilbreath, I’ve also been reading the blog of two Princeton professors lately. Check it out; it’s called The Kitchen Table.

The Princeton University Art Museum is likewise a lovely place to spend an afternoon. The museum is free and contains a good deal of compelling Christian art and iconography. There are also a couple witty architectural exhibits right now and a nice collection of ancient art, including Roman floor and wall mosaics. Strolling the campus, parts of which date back to 1756, is itself an exercise in art appreciation.

My husband’s handicapped tag came in handy on this trip. A quick phone call to the PU parking office and we were waved in to park on campus. Between the museum and the lecture, I dragged him to the Whole Earth Natural Grocery, which has been selling bulk health foods on Nassau Street since the 1970s. The last time I was there, it was a warm, earthy place. A low VOC renovation has left the store feeling sterile, cold and utterly suburban. Still, I stocked up on brown rice, Kombu seaweed (which is supposed to reduce the gassiness of beans when a couple 1-inch chunks are thrown in the pot) and other vegan staples. 

On the drive to Princeton, I was struck once again by the subtle beauty of my state. We passed quaint farms, small towns and mile after mile of hearty pine. A gas station on Rte. 33 was simultaneously selling Chicken Parmesan sandwiches and gas for under $2-a-gallon. Can’t beat that.

At dinner on the same road in Hightstown (half way between home and Princeton), a high school classmate of my husband’s was working as a waitress. Dinner was lousy. We should have eaten down the road at Jack Baker’s Lobster Shanty instead. Baker’s original Lobster Shanty is a landmark in my home town of Point Pleasant Beach. I went to high school with his children, one of whom is a longtime friend.

We were at a delightful party together last night. There was plenty of good wine, lots of laughter and a passionate debate amongst old friends the likes of which I imagine taking place in Republican living rooms from coast to heretical coast. The topic? What does it mean to be a Conservative? What went wrong in ’08? And since when did disagreement mean one’s conservative and/or spiritual credentials are suspect?

Have I mentioned lately how glad I am to be home?

I have a job interview Tuesday. Send up a prayer for me if you’re so inclined. I’ve been told to prepare for a two-hour introduction.

 4 Comments

 Posted on December 6, 2008 by

 Books, Capitalism, Community, Culture, Democracy, Education, Ethics, Faith, Humanism, Philosophy, Politics, Public Square, Theology, Walkin' the Talk

     , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some Thoughts on Substance at Saddleback

My thoughts on the Saddleback Forum on the Presidency? Overall, I thought John McCain looked and sounded really old. I thought he spoke in sound bites. I thought it was absurd that he had to reach back some forty years for a story about his faith. I agreed with young Brian and Lauren in that he reminded me of a grandpa reliving (and relying on) his glory days rather than a future-focused leader. In short, I thought Obama was the more thoughtful, engaging candidate.

It may surprise some readers that I was not particularly bothered by Obama’s answers on abortion and stem cell research since I’ve been a vocal opponent of both. Life is certainly more precious to me now than ever in light of my son’s death earlier this year. However, like other evangelicals and post-evangelicals, I’m much less likely to base my vote on these issues than I might have been in previous elections. 

The reasons are myriad, but I’ll start with this: there are moments when I feel like a statistic—just another mother of a young, black man who died a tragic, senseless death in the context of a racialized society. Whether I look at his death from a psycho-social perspective or a purely medical one, issues that relate to the quality of life for African Americans are viscerally important to me in this election cycle.

Given my interview focus for this event, I was struck by the disconnect between the predominantly white evangelical audience’s responses and the concerns of their African American brethren, which, in my interviews, centered on the economy and health care. Jobs and good health go together, in case anyone was wondering.

I wish I could write about a particular health insurance nightmare that my family is currently dealing with, but I am not at liberty to do so. The situation is akin to one I blogged about some time ago in regard to a black mother whose teenage son had died from a heart defect. The boy’s brother had the same defect and had already suffered two heart attacks. He could not work and thus could not afford the medication that would keep him alive. He had been repeatedly turned down for Social Security benefits. This situation is unconscionable. It’s also a pro-life issue that hits me where I live.

I’ve wanted to publicly say for a long time that my goal as a pro-life writer is less about legislation and more about letting women know that having their baby will not ruin their life; doing so will enrich life in challenging, wonderful ways. I believe this more now than ever. I have often wondered why we get so upset about the fate of embryos if we really believe their souls, if they have them, go to be with God. My concern in regard to hESC research has, for some time, centered on who we are as human beings and as a society when we view life, even nascient life, as disposable. These issues are, of course, important matters of law about which I come firmly down on the pro-life side. I just no longer buy the argument that this should be the foundational issue upon which one should base their vote.

As an opponent of hESC research and as a patient advocate, I object to science being pursued and politicized because of the abortion debate. Both candidates were wrong on this issue Saturday night. As I reported here in March, hESC researchers themselves are beginning to declare hESCs a dead end in terms of cures. Why then the excessive investment of limited resources? Why is this still even a question worthy of presidential debate? How about instead asking if the candidates favor regulation of the IVF industry? Even some hESC researchers and IVF doctors are asking for this.

Warren asked two unique questions in my view, the one about making adoption easier and the one about human trafficking. I was glad to hear Obama commit to making adoption easier, particularly if it prioritizes children lingering in foster care here in the United States.

On the human trafficking question, I’m a bit more cynical. As a person acquainted with a SoCal mega-church culture that covers up the sexual abuse of minors and punishes those who speak out, this topic sounds like a feel good way to oppose something far away. Sex slaves in Asia. It costs little for the average American to oppose that from an armchair in suburbia. Not so easy to turn in Uncle Ted when he’s providing financial support to a struggling single parent family, or to risk one’s livelihood when Uncle Ted is a well-connected pastor. If I’ve learned three things about sexual abuse of minors when it’s up close and personal, they are 1) people generally won’t talk, 2) when they do, they will be socially punished, and 3) perpetrators are rarely prosecuted. I wonder, also, how many Orange County evangelicals include in their definition of victims of human trafficking, the undocumented migrants who’ve unwittingly sold themselves into slavery to get across the Mexican/US border? 

As to the question of evil, I found both men’s answers frightening for reasons articulated well by Crunchy Con columnist Rod Dreher. Earlier today, he wrote:

Obama’s nuance, it seems to me, is another word for vagueness. Quinn, a liberal, thinks Obama’s taking a pass on answering Warren’s query about when an unborn child (or, if you prefer, the fetus) acquires human rights is a sign of a supple mind. In fact, by refusing to explain his views, Obama was either being purely political, or revealing that he is not a careful or inquisitive thinker about one of the most critical moral and political issues of our time. “Above my pay grade” is a pure dodge. There is a pro-choice answer to that question, one that I happen to disagree with, but that’s at least philosophically valid. Obama chose not to give it. Why? And why is it considered intellectually respectable by the likes of Quinn that Obama declined to give a straight answer to this question? There is a certain kind of intellectual that sees muddleheadedness as a virtue. It’s the classic liberal weakness: to find, or to seem to find, reasons to excuse evil, or to avoid a confrontation for disreputable reasons.

On the other hand, Kristol views McCain’s utter clarity as a sign of virtue. How anybody can emerge from the Bush years and the Iraq experience with the same Manichaean view of the world and America’s role in it is flabbergasting. But there it is. If Obama was too abstracted — and he was — then McCain was too concrete, and his concreteness was itself a form of ideological abstraction. In other words, by seeming to refuse to recognize complexity in the world and the tragic sense at work in our affairs, McCain evidences living in a world of unreality as well.

Nevertheless, as a political matter, McCain’s approach plays much better with Americans. We like a good story, and we like to understand complex matters of morality and policy in terms of story. When Obama made the perfectly reasonable and necessary point that we have inadvertently done evil in the name of good, he should have brought up Abu Ghraib and torture as examples. He should also have spoken of the unplanned and inadvertent evil of getting our soldiers bound up in wars that seemingly have no end, for no compelling national interest. He might have spoken about how our good intentions about expanding home ownership to more Americans led us to foolishly overextend our financial system.

There are many stories Obama could have told about the cost of imprudence, and he could have — and should have — planted doubts among voters about where the high-minded, crusading verities regarding the nature of Evil and the proper response to it has gotten the country. But he missed that opportunity.

Well those are my thoughts about the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. Whoops. I forgot to mention gay marriage and the war. Tough issues about which I’ll take a pass for now. Last point: I was glad to hear both men prioritize the energy crisis. As to whether or not journalists should be worried that Warren is going to put them out of a job, I do believe the whole “Cone of Silence” non-debacle speaks for itself, in both substance and silliness.

 7 Comments

 Posted on August 18, 2008 by

 church life, Community, Culture, Democracy, Politics, Public Square, Race, Walkin' the Talk

     , , , , , , , ,

Goodnight Saddleback

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s Gary Bauer selling John McCain. He thinks Obama’s in trouble.

 

Here’s Joshua DuBois, National Director of Religious Affairs for the Obama campaign. He seemed less than thrilled when I asked him if he was disappointed that Warren didn’t ask a question about race relations. He thinks his guy “knocked it out of the ballpark” by talking about his personal faith, health care, the energy crisis, etc. It was a mantra he repeated to several reporters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s Cynthia McFadden of Nightline wrapping interviews after the event. The gentleman in blue is one of the attendees that I spoke with, Hayward Cheesebourough. I’m going to follow up with him and others later this week, and perhaps again as November approaches.

 

My only look at the inner sanctum. The tent was fun, though, especially talking with a French reporter who’s been in the US 50 years, but only became a citizen a few years back. She thinks socialism ruined France. Says she’s going back if the socialists take over here. Huh?

I did manage to find an African American McCain supporter, the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson. Reverend Jesse was undecided before tonight, but was so impressed with McCain that he’s ready to put a campaign sign on his lawn. Peterson was also the only non-campaign operative I saw pursuing multiple interviews.  

I didn’t snap a photo of Brian and Lauren. They’re a couple of kids who watched from tent #3. Brian is black and Lauren is a toe-headed blonde. They looked to be about 12, but said they are old enough to vote in this presidential election. Both thought Obama was the more personable of the candidates. Lauren seemed reluctant to express her opinion about McCain in front of Brian. He wasn’t the least bit shy about expressing his. I wonder about that. In the end they agreed that McCain sounded like a grandpa telling stories. And people say youth is wasted on the young.

‘Night all.

 

 2 Comments

 Posted on August 17, 2008 by

 Leadership, Politics, Public Square

     , , ,

Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency 5pm

 

  

The most surprising moment of the day so far … a room full of journalists not only standing up to sing the national anthem, but continuing to sing when the audio went down … except for a few, like the shaggy-haired guy from CNN, and me. I wasn’t sure what to do, so I alternately stood and sat, but didn’t sing.

Another interesting moment … a BBC reporter eloquently taping this bit: “With helicopters overhead and sharp shooters prowling the roof of this multimillion dollar mega-church in Southern California …” Only, I didn’t see any sharp shooters. Maybe I misheard.

Other outlets relegated to the tent:

NewsJoy

High Desert Gospel News

Working Nurse Magazine

California Crusader

Precious Times Magazine

Scholastic News (Kid Reporter)

Hanin News

Not, however, Candy Crowley. She went in, but was as gracious as could be when I talked with her and took this hideous photo.

 

I spoke with about a dozen African Americans, most of whom are Obama supporters. Not one confessing McCain supporter in the bunch. Also ran into Miles McPherson. This San Diego mega-church pastor didn’t say who he’s supporting. We got to talking about people we both know here in SoCal, like my sister-in-law’s brother, Todd Durkin. Todd was my mother’s paperboy back in New Jersey. Now he is a personal trainer for athletes like San Diego Charger LaDainian Thomlinson.

I also did not speak to one person who paid for a ticket. One attendee said 200-250 tickets were sold to offset costs and that the majority of seats went to church volunteers.

More later …

 Posted on August 17, 2008 by

 Politics, Public Square

     ,

Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency 10 am

 

 

In a few hours, I’ll be glad I got here so early. Right now, I’m glad I brought a couple books:

Trauma and Recovery by Judith Herman, M.D. and An Unquiet Mind by Kay Redfield Jamison. Research for another project.

 Posted on August 16, 2008 by

 Leadership, Politics, Psychiatry, Psychology, Public Square

     , , , , ,

Tommorrow …

I’ll be one of hundreds of reporters descending on Saddleback Church for Rick Warren’s Civil Forum on the Presidency, starring Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. I’m hoping to run into Maureen Dowd, only I’m pretty sure she’ll be in the auditorium and I’ll be watching remotely from the “media filing tent.”

The “D” list journalists and I will be camping outside while a pastor conducts the interviews. Not even Dowd is allowed to ask a question. I was going to say that if these guys had crossed paths with some of the pastors I’ve known, they’d stick with journalists, but then the names Wright and Hagee popped into my head. Proof positive they’re smart enough, or, at least, savvy enough, to lead.

At any rate, let’s hope my sojourn on the “Z” list turns out to be as lucrative as Kathy Griffin‘s exploits. I could do with a little less reality though, which is why I’ll be live-blogging the event in the spirit of CNN’s Jeannie Moos. You know Jeannie Moos. She reports on obscure oddities from the underbelly of life. Expect nothing.

Maybe, just maybe, I’ll get something worthy of writing about for UrbanFaith.com. I’m not optimistic. I’ll be relegated to the hinterland, after all, and UrbanFaith.com isn’t even online yet. I’ve not been to Saddleback before, however, and couldn’t pass up the possibility of setting eyes and ears on the next president. If not him, then at least Dowd, the wench.

That was a joke, by the way. An ode to Dowd, the columnist men love to hate and women secretly envy.

 2 Comments

 Posted on August 16, 2008 by

 Leadership, Politics, Public Square, Walkin' the Talk

     , , , ,

Gralla ’08

From Jewish medical ethics to the mikveh: 14 journalists complete ’08 Gralla Fellows Program at Brandeis

 
 
WALTHAM, Mass. – Fourteen journalists from eight states and Canada participated in the 2008 Gralla Fellows Program for Religion Journalists at Brandeis University.
The Gralla Fellows Program, the premier advanced journalism seminar in the nation on the American Jewish community, is designed to enhance journalists’ knowledge of Judaism, American Jewish life and trends relevant to religion reporting. The program was held July 13-18 on the Brandeis campus. Fellows, including religion reporters from media outlets including The Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, Beliefnet.com and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, were selected from a competitive pool of candidates in print, broadcast and digital media.

 

During this year’s program fellows had the opportunity to meet with leading scholars, communal leaders, and reporters to explore topics ranging from politics and the coming election, to American Jews and Islam, to how the economy impacts religion. In addition to the seminars and workshops, fellows visited the Mayyim Hayyim Living Waters Community Mikveh and Education Center in Newton, Mass., two synagogues in the Boston area, and other Jewish sites to become better acquainted with Judaism and to learn more about issues in Jewish life they can report about.
Jonathan D. Sarna, the Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish History in the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies, and the director of Hornstein: The Jewish Professional Leadership Program @ Brandeis, directs the Gralla Program along with associate director Ellen Smith.
Founded in 1998, the Gralla Program is open to journalists in the early and middle stages of their careers.  In odd-numbered years the program focuses on journalists in the Jewish press.  In even-numbered years, the program is offered to religion journalists.
The program is made possible by a grant from Milton Gralla, co-founder of Gralla Publications and creator and editor of outstanding trade publications for more than 30 years.  Fellows receive funding for tuition, room and board, and a travel stipend.
Since 1998, the Gralla Program has trained more than 200 fellows.

 

The 2008 Gralla Fellows include:
 
Kay Campbell, faith and values editor, The Huntsville Times, Huntsville, Ala.
Deena Guzder, freelance journalist, New York City, N.Y.
Barbara Karkabi, religion writer, Houston Chronicle, Houston, Texas
Alana Elias Kornfeld, assistant editor and Judaism editor, Beliefnet.com, New York City, N.Y.
Frank Lockwood, religion editor, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Little Rock, Ark.
Christine Morente, faith editor/staff writer, San Mateo County Times, San Mateo, Calif.
Max Pearlstein, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.
Mirko Petricevic, religion reporter, Waterloo Region Record, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Jacqueline Salmon, religion reporter, Washington Post, Fairfax, Va.
Christine Scheller, freelance journalist, Irvine, Calif.
Lois Solomon, religion reporter, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Boca Raton, Fla.
Tamar Snyder, staff writer, The Jewish Week, New York City, N.Y.
Sharon Udasin, staff writer, The Jewish Week, New York City, N.Y.
Steven Vegh, religion staff writer, The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, Va.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Max Pearlstein ’01

University and Media Relations Specialist
Office of Communications
Brandeis University
781-736-4206
Fax: 781-736-4209

 Images from Gralla ’08

 

 

A History    

     

    

 

 

 

 [

 

 

 

photos ©cas 2008, all rights reserved.] 

 Posted on August 1, 2008 by

 Community, Culture, Education, Ethics, Journalism, Public Square, Travel

     , , , , , , ,

The Birth of an Activist by Gabriel G. Scheller

In this piece of work from Gabriel’s senior year of high school, he outlines his racial awakening and subsequent passion for racial justice and reconciliation. 

***

The Birth of an Activist by Gabriel G. Scheller

Over the years I have probably read more books than the average teenager. This can partly be attributed to my four years of home schooling with a literature-based curriculum and partly an early introduction to novels by my mother. I have also seen many movies and television shows, more than is probably healthy. Because of these two factors, I was hard-pressed to think of one book or movie that has had any significant influence on my life. The movies I chose are Remember the Titans and Glory; the book is Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

I have been blessed to live as a bi-racial child in an entirely Caucasian family. I never knew my Tanzanian birth father. About a month after my first birthday, my mom married my father and he adopted me when I was five. I have never felt uncomfortable around my white family. Everyone on both my natural mother’s side and my adoptive father’s side treats me with love and respect.

My parents tried as hard as they could to make sure I never tasted the bitterness of racism or bigotry. They even moved the whole family from Point Pleasant Beach, NJ, which had hardly any diversity to Long Branch, NJ, which had everything from Hispanics to Asians. In turn, I never had to deal with discrimination because of the color of my skin. I was never denied access to any public place because I was black. I could always drink out of the same water fountain as anyone else. This was a blessing in almost every way, except that by not suffering myself, I was not as sympathetic towards the people who had suffered as I could have been. The Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement seemed so far away that I never appreciated what had been sacrificed.

It was not until eighth grade that I began to realize the things I had been taking for granted. My mom, my brother and I read Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s writing style was breathtaking and powerful. She made me feel the ice cold water of a woman trying to escape through a frozen river and every lash inflicted on Tom by Simon Legree. As we read, I had to breathe sighs of relief throughout the book and thank God that he did not create me to live in that time.

Later on I saw the movie and it was very disappointing, as most book-based movies are. I was the only one in AP History class who had read the book and I had everyone excited to watch it. “Wait ’til you see how bad Legree is. You’re gonna’ hate him so much.” Unfortunately the film makers could not fully visualize just how evil Simon was. They did not make his voice drip with hate or send tingles up my spine every time he entered a scene. The movie made him out to be simply an angry drunk, more pitiful than malevolent. The effect was exactly the opposite of the one I had had as a reader. Instead of hating Legree, I almost felt sorry for him.

This new found empathy with the suffering of my predecessors invigorated me. I wanted to do everything for Civil Rights! I wanted to fight the good fight! But there was not even a little inequality I could find in my town, considering the fact that minorities were the majority.

It was not until sophomore year that I saw the two movies that have had the greatest effect on me. I recall seeing posters advertising Remember the Titans and scrutinizing it harshly. How could a Disney movie about football be worth seeing? After it came out, the buzz of the critics was positive, but anyone can find a critic who likes a bad movie. I didn’t take it that seriously until I heard the kids in school raving about it. It was inspirational! It made grown men cry! I finally watched it in my US History II class when it came out on video. I was astonished by Denzel Washington’s stellar performance. This movie didn’t sugar coat anything. It showed the bigotry and skewed logic of disrespecting someone just because of their skin color.

I wanted to do something. I thought for a long time and finally decided I wanted to make a movie, a story of racism that takes place in the present. I wanted to show that it still lives, to show that even though the movers and shakers of the Civil Rights Movement made astronomical advances, we still have a ways to go. I also wanted it to be set in the North. Unfortunately other than setting, I really had nothing to go on. I thought for days, but nothing came to mind and I gradually forgot about my plans.

That spring the class watched Glory. Once again I watched as African Americans were hated for no logical reason. I watched them fight and die for the freedom that I still take for granted. I wanted others to feel the same way I did, watching these movies and reading that book. I was reminded of my screenplay. This time I was determined to come up with a plot. I tried for almost two weeks. Everything I came up with was either pitiful or reminiscent of some other movie. Three weeks had gone by and I had given up. I went to sleep depressed and discouraged. It must have been 2:30 in the morning when I woke up. I saw it all in my head: plot, camera angles, what the actors needed to look like. Everything was there. I hopped out of bed and took out a piece of paper from my desk drawer. I had to get it all down. I couldn’t forget. I crawled back into bed after almost forty-five minutes of furious scribbling and fell asleep with a smile spread across my face.

After much refining and lots of thought, my screenplay evolved into a book. I figured that it would be a lot easier for a first time author to have his book published than it would be to have a screenplay made into the major movie I wanted it to be. Plus, I had no idea how to write a screenplay. It just made more sense to write it as a book, hope it would be popular and then have it made into a movie.

The novella is coming along very slowly. I have been writing it for almost a year. Due to writer’s block and my tendency toward procrastination, I have spent much less time on it than I would have liked. In the move out here to California, some of my important notes were lost, which set me back further. I plan on bouncing back and reaching my goal before I have to leave for college, where I will probably be so sick of writing things that I’d rather have my fingers broken than do it voluntarily.

These three media pieces have influenced me for the better. I have more respect for myself and appreciation for my ethnicity. I don’t let people make ignorant comments about my being mixed the way I used to—even if it’s only in fun. I have decided to stop pretending that it doesn’t hurt. One day I hope and pray that I will have done something to make at least one person feel the same way.

[© GGS 2002, all rights reserved.]

 1 Comment

 Posted on June 13, 2008 by

 Art, Community, Culture, Education, Family, Gabriel Gifford Scheller, History, Leadership, Public Square, Race

     , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Editorial or Christian Bashing? by Gabriel G. Scheller

In Gabriel’s only semester at Corona del Mar High School in Newport Beach, CA, he quickly made his prescence known. When his response to an offensive and irresponsible editorial in the school newspaper was rejected for publication, Gabe printed 100 or so flyers and handed them out to students … until he was stopped by school administrators and, if I recall correctly, instructed to collect the ones he had already distributed. His reasoning matured with age and experience, but the incubation of an activist with high ideals and the ability to articulate them is evident here. I proudly introduce Editorial or Christian Bashing? by Gabriel G. Scheller

 Birth of an Activist

I opened the paper this morning in first period. I flipped through the pages looking for something that would grab my interest. There was a headline in bold block lettering that stated simply “Evangelical Christians.” This interested me so I decided to read on. I would first off like to say that if I was to write something that put down any religion other than Christianity the way Ms. Y did, it would never make it to the final issue. R seems to have an utter resentment and hostility towards a whole group of people that she is not afraid to hide. Now, on the mistakes she made in her effort to turn our campus against my faith.

Finally I come to the part that angered me the most. Ms. Y refers to one man’s ridiculous view that “it has always been Christians and Jews on one side and Muslims on the other” and places that idea on the entire “crazy Christian group” to which I belong. This is by far one of the most unfair statements that R made. It is the equivalent of me saying that all Muslims are crazy and “absurd” because a select few flew some planes into the WTC. I would never make such a statement. I have known many Muslims and they have all proven to be extremely kind and accepting. I would not dare do anything so ignorant as to discount a whole group of people because of one man’s bad choice.

We will start with the first sentence of the first paragraph. R states that “the evangelicals are hard-core Christians who interpret the Bible word for word.” She also states towards the end that “the Bible should not be interpreted literally. If it were, where would all other religions fit in?” To start off, I think that if you live your life by a certain book, or law, why wouldn’t you take it literally? If you belong to a religion, you don’t pick and choose which parts sound nice to you. You take it for all it is, the whole thing. Imagine if we ignored certain laws and only obeyed the ones that we agreed with. “Well, I’m sorry officer. I know it is illegal to speed in a school zone with pot in my car, but I don’t really like that law. The one that prohibits murder is nice, but I shouldn’t have to follow that MIP one because I don’t like it.” If you agree to be part of a country or a religion, you also take on the responsibility of the laws laid out.

In reaction to her second statement, no one said religion had to be “PC.” I can believe what I want without worrying if it is going to offend someone. This skewed logic reminds me of a certain book written by Ray Bradbury. In this story, the government gets rid of all the books, religious or not, because anything that is written will upset at least some people. So the government burns all books so no one will be upset. I wonder if in R’s quest for people to compromise their religious convictions to make other people happy, she considered what such a mindset could lead to. It seems that Ms. Y believes that we should have tolerance for all religions, give them all equal consideration. I do not dispute that point. But R seems to have no tolerance for Christianity as she unwittingly tears it apart.

As for her statement about most of our senators and presidents being Christian, why is that even an issue? Is it even relative? I’m not positive R knows this, but almost all our founding fathers had religious beliefs. It seems that R wants our political leaders to have no religion at all. But would that be a true representation of our country? I don’t think so. Most Americans claim to be Christian. Just ask your history teacher. I am sure he would not dispute that fact. Furthermore it would be nearly impossible to find men for every political position who believed in nothing. R says it is sad that religion will always play a part in politics. I disagree. How do you think our first moral laws were established? Can you tell me why it is bad to cheat on your girlfriend? Can you tell me why it isn’t legal to have more than one wife? These things had to come from somewhere.

R seems to focus her article on Christians disliking Jews. She says that we believe Jews are going to be destroyed when the Armageddon comes. I looked in my Bible and I couldn’t find a spot where it said that. In the book of Revelation in chapter 14, John writes that 144,000 Jews will be sent to heaven during the end times. If we flip back a little to the book of Romans, it talks about how the Jews will see that the Antichrist is terrorizing the earth and they will realize that Jesus was the Messiah they have been waiting for. The Bible also states in Genesis 12:3 that God will bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse them. As a Christian, I worship a JEW! Jesus Christ was a Jew! I don’t know, maybe that episode of 60 Minutes slanted the truth in some way, but I think if a journalist is going to state someone else’s beliefs, she should at least do it knowing all the facts.

[© GGS 2002, all rights reserved.]

 2 Comments

 Posted on June 13, 2008 by

 1, church life, Community, Democracy, Ethics, Gabriel Gifford Scheller, Journalism, Leadership, Public Square

     , , , , , , , , ,

Explorations Media

Powered by WordPress.com.