Final Visual Project - Evangelical Christianity

The Wikipedia article has this to say about Evangelical Christians:

'Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s. Most adherents consider its key characteristics to be: a belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again"); some expression of the gospel in effort; a high regard for Biblical authority; and an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus. David Bebbington has termed these four distinctive aspects conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism, saying, "Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism."'

My parents converted to Christianity when I was six years old. They were having some serious marital strife and they ended up seeing a Christian marriage counselor. They've been Christians ever since. My mother converted from Judaism and my father from Catholicism. They started attending a Congregational church until I was 13 and then they began attending an Evangelical church. I was required to attend church services and participate in Sunday schools, youth groups, etc. until I was 18 years old. This blog will attempt to explain what makes an Evangelical Christian different from "mainstream Christianity" (i.e. more socially liberal groups) and Fundamentalist Christianity. It is important to note that these differences that I will be discussing are not end-all-be-all types of differences. As in all religious sects, there is a lot of breathing room for diverse versions of religion/faith that exist under the same label.


Both Evangelicals and Fundamentalists put a lot of faith in the Bible but Evangelical Christianity differs from Fundamentalist Christianity most notably in the way that Scripture is dealt with. Fundamentalists take the Bible much more literally than Evangelicals. Evangelicals often interpret the Bible in a more progressive manner that applies more obviously to modern times. Fundamentalists see this as blasphemous (or something similar to blasphemy but less offensive). Due to this key difference Evangelicals are often less socially conservative than Fundamentalists, however very few Evangelicals would be called Liberals in terms of social beliefs.

In recent years the gap between many "mainstream" forms of Christianity and Evangelicalism has been shrinking. The main difference is between these two groups is, again, in how they deal with the Bible. Most "mainstream" Christian groups do not hold the Bible to be absolutely true, but instead use the text as more of a well-intentioned guide. Most Evangelical Christians hold the belief that you are only able to accept and believe all that the Bible offers or you cannot believe any of it. This is the thing about Evangelicalism that often makes them seem like Fundamentalists at first glance.

Because the Evangelical denomination has grown so much in recent years it is very difficult to put a finger on commonalities when it comes to systems of symbols. In order to make this less of a problem, I will focus on Evangelical Christianity within the United States.

The only common symbol for the majority of Evangelical Christians is the style of sanctuary within the actual church building. No physical representations of Jesus are allowed within the sanctuary--the idea being that physical representations of Jesus would lead to people worshiping an image (i.e. Golden Calf phenomenon when Moses returned from Mount Sinai with 10 Commandments). Here are some pictures of Evangelical church buildings and their respective sanctuaries:







As you can see, all of these sanctuaries focus on a cross with no image of Jesus present. This is to promote meditation upon the crucifixion (the most important event for Evangelicals) with the simplest of symbols in order to keep from being distracted. Another interesting thing to note is that most Evangelical churches use the lowest height of platform possible in the front (lowest possible in order for everyone to see). This is an attempt to keep the attendees from focusing too much on an individual and glorifying them. It is also interesting to note that Fundamentalists do not allow images of Jesus in the church either. However, you will notice a key difference between the two types of services after attending: most Evangelical services attempt to be modern/progressive in instrumentation for singing (i.e. including drums). This is something that most Fundamentalists frown upon.

Bahai Post

I watched the video of the first Choral Music Festival held at the House of Worship on May 27, 2007 and was very happy to see such a beautiful thing being organized through a Baha'i temple. The video was a little silly and didn't really show much of the music, but I think it's just supposed to be a teaser anyway. And of course, it had the obligatory "non-member" speaking about how the Festival was a great way to bring people together. But it's true. Music is magical.

The architecture of this building is amazing. I love modern hybrids of very old architecture styles. This one seems to be drawing heavily from both Eastern and Western tradition, which is very fitting for a temple that houses worship services that speak on the one-ness of religion and spirituality. Very cool site and very informative.

Scientology IS a religion

This post is in response to the terrible discussion in Friday's class about Scientology. Many people were speaking about how religions need to be accessible to anyone who is not already a part of the religion in order for the aforementioned religion to be legitimate. I disagree completely. That's like saying the anonymous leader of a group of guerrilla rebels doesn't exist simply due to the fact that there are no photos/name to apply to the leader. Just because you (the yous in class that were speaking on this) don't know all about Scientology does not mean that it is not a religion. Absolute rubbish.

New Religion

Founding a new religion is a tricky process. The main elements that I see going into founding a religion are establishing moral rules/guidelines (i.e. how does this religion affect my day to day actions?), establishing a hierarchy (or lack thereof), and setting up a system of symbols that can be recognized as adhering to said religion. I think that any religion that is founded that wishes to stick around for a while (without being mocked by everyone *cough* scientology) requires a lot of time. Maybe not for the actual process of founding the religion, but the more time the religion is around the more legitimate it will become. By legitimate I mean respectable to the general public. In general I would say that any new religion that is founded inevitably draws from other religions that exist before the founding of a new religion. This could be a progression as obvious as Christianity to Judaism, or something harder to draw connections with, like scientology. The founder's position is one of great importance. Depending on who the founder of a new religion is, people might automatically accept or reject the new religion. If the founder is well-respected and esteemed by colleagues/general public the religion has a much better chance at being recognized than if the founder is on death row for raping and murdering children. Sorry, that example is a little extreme, but it gets the point across.

Ganja

One of the most intriguing elements of the Rastafari faith is the ritualistic use of marijuana, or ganja. Ganja is used to help bridge the gap between the spiritual world and the physical world, and it is an essential part of Rastafari tradition. Even though its importance is clear, many countries do not allow Rastafari residents to grow/ingest ganja. I don't understand how this religious ritual can be denied to Rastas--it's like denying Christians the right to partake of wine during communion. No, it's worse than that. Juice can be substituted for wine and it does not alter the ceremony (the alcoholic content of wine is not necessary for the communion experience). But there is not a legal alternative to marijuana that allows for the same type of religious experience.

When will this world learn...

Rastafari/Marley

The side of Rastafari faith that Bob Marley exhibits in his music is one of passion and rhythm. Marley is delivering messages that have the potential to be interpreted in different ways, but his delivery always involves the same passion and the reggae style always provides the relaxed rhythm. Seeing the Marley videos made me feel like the Rastafari religion is one of passion, love, and music.

The video of Rastafari in Jamaica promoted ideas, but the message about the faith was much more upfront (obviously). The Rastas who are interviewed speak of traditions and rituals, something that is not immediately obvious in Marley's music. Marley does exhibit many of these things visually, though, such as dreadlocks and portraits of Selassie. Rhythm and passion are very evident in this video.

The main difference between these videos was that Marley's music provides a message rooted in modernity while the video of Rastas in Jamaica offers a much more traditional view of the religion.

Ehm

Here are a couple of poems that deals with elements of religion by one of my favorite poets (Andy Graff):


Posted by: “Rabbi78375.” April 5, 2:20 AM.

Today I bring a joke first:
A man builds a box of lead in which to grow his daisies, fitted with rain dials and sun dials, fully equipped to circumvent the world. His garden, inside his lead box, is a perfect garden. But when he opens his box to gaze upon his daisies the man exclaims, Crabgrass! I never dialed the box to crabgrass! I remember this as a good joke, but now to a lesson.

I read today from Moses and Lacan:

In Genesis, God said: Let the water teem with living creatures of the sea, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of sky…and let the birds increase on the earth. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. What is interesting to note is that man is not created until the sixth day… therefore the birds had one full night to age, to eat in the garden, to experience light and dark. The bird, we see, is older than man.

The second prophet, in a poem called “The Insistence of I,” wrote: Meaning always unfolds its dimension before it. As is seen at the level of the sentence when it is interrupted before the significant term: “I shall never…,” “All the same it is…,” “And yet there may be…,” Such sentences are not without meaning.

I believe we will, given more time, understand why birds have been falling.



Posted by Rabbi22770, April 9th, 2:59 AM.

This Sunday it is my turn to bless the offering at church and I will speak of the bulbous spill of birth and I will show slides. I will fire a cap-gun when the water breaks, and I will spread my arms wide to connote an infinite dilation of cervix. I will roll my eyes back to their whites—this placental ache, this deep reversal, this naked child coiled in his staff.

Blast! Kebra Negast has done it again

After reading the section from the Kebra Negast about King Solomon and Queen Sheba I realized how silly history can be. That Ethiopia claims to be the new location for the Solomonic line of kings is amusing. That anyone from Ethiopia cares who their kings are descended from is also funny. Okay, so my perspective is a 21st century one, but still.... the idea that a king is only legitimized by bloodline is completely problematic. Do the king's credentials mean anything or is it simply a matter of family names?

Another interesting thing about this reading in relation to the Psalms: the author tries to make the reader believe that the whole Solomon/Sheba affair was 100% OK and both people are still very cool cats. I wonder how many Ethiopians that bought into this idea were familiar with the Psalms. Would it have changed their outlook? Who knows. My guess is: probably not.

Conceptual Blending: Smoothies and the like

Gilles Fauconnier's article on Conceptual Blending and Analogy is very easily applied to religion. The conceptual blending that Fauconnier discusses in this article is basically typical analogy taken a step further (conceptually) because the situation requires a further conceptual understanding or because a further conceptual understanding enhances quality of learned material/understood material. In an analogy, one thing is compared to another in order to draw a conclusion. The two things being compared must have an agreement of ratios in order for the analogy to work correctly. But what about those situations where there is not an agreement of ratios? Use conceptual blending! Blending is a process that takes into account each of the two things and assigns them to an input (input 1 and input 2). Or, in Fauconnier's words, "two inputs share organizing frame structure." In fact, why don't I just use his words. "Two inputs share organizing frame structure. They get linked by a cross-space mapping and projected selectively to a blended space. The projection allows emergent structure to develop on the basis of composition, pattern completion (based on background models), and elaboration ('running the blend')." Blending allows us to apply analogy to objects that don't actually have an agreement of ratios.



So how does this apply to religion?

Well, all I could think about while reading this article was the similarities of the Christian god to the god in Judaism. Basically, Christianity stole the same god and gave him a son and a spirit.... I'm not exactly sure if this applies directly but... I feel like it's definitely related to blending.

Baruch Spinoza

"By GOD, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is,
a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of
which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
Explanation. I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind:
for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes
may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in
its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation."

This quote is taken from the introductory notes of Spinoza's Part 1 of The Ethics.

The God that Spinoza defines intrigues me. I think that this definition of God applies to almost every time that he/she is mentioned in conversation. What interests me most is where this idea came from. This idea of God is a giant one and I am curious as to when it originated in human thought. The human mind cannot possibly grasp the full meaning of God (as defined by Spinoza) yet the human mind is indeed where the definition came from. Thinking about this makes my head spin.

On a side note, if you are familiar with Spinoza and are interested in poetry then you should pick up a copy of any of these fine texts:

The author


DJ Spinoza's Dozen


Infinite Recursor Or The Bride Of DJ Spinoza


The Life and Opinions of DJ Spinoza


If you like those books, then you'll like this one:

The Off Centaur

hmmmm

Isn't it interesting how God is shown in many different lights throughout the Bible (especially the new testament)? God is described as an omnipotent being who knows all and sees all while simultaneously being accessible to the individual. Furthermore, the God of the old testament is often represented as a force that aids in the conquering of 'other' nations while the new testament states that God's followers are "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language." (Rev 7:9)

Who is the God of the Bible? Gee, it seems that he might be whatever the author wants him to be--or perhaps whatever the author needs him to be. I don't know, is this biased? Maybe. I just can't get over how sillily (I know that's not a word, but it should be) the Bible (old test.+new test.) represents God. I don't think I would feel comfortable having a personal relationship with someone who will smite nations for disagreeing with him.... which brings me to the question: what am I doing in America?

Psalm 18

In this Psalm God is presented as a bringer of justice. According to the author (probably David) God not only protects the faithful but also punishes the wicked. God's justice seems to be carried out through man; David remarks that God has given him a "miraculous bow" and trained him for battle.

In response to the question about elements that are very similar to different religious traditions being problematic...

Problematic for whom? For the readers of the Psalm at the time it was written? No. The similarities were probably used so that the common people would connect to the text in a more immediate fashion. The Psalm is automatically accessible due to those similarities.

Problematic for the modern reader? Not necessarily. Again, these similarities make the text more widely accessible and the reader is able to understand things from multiple viewpoints. But the modern reader will probably not be able to "buy into" the message nearly as easily due to these similarities. A modern reader will be much less keen on a religion that seems to borrow from others instead of being unique. On the other hand, a different modern reader might appreciate the message in a more widespread manner, though I see that as difficult (since the speaker is crushing enemies and ruling over foreigners). The message seems to apply directly to American patriotism. I mean, the image of God that is presented in this chapter is indeed frightening--in any context.







Why do so many Americans worship money? Is it just a side-effect of 'capitalism' (pfft) or is it something else? Who knows.






I find this Gallup Poll pretty interesting. I can't wait until I'm 70+ and can afford to stop worrying about money all the time. Oh, wait--I'm getting a B.A. in Studio Art! I'll never have any money to worry about in the first place!

When I first came to Lawrence I was rather surprised at how rarely money would come up in conversation. Then I started talking about money all the time. I quickly realized that everyone actually does think about money quite often; they just don't like to talk about it--like religion! Most people seem to associate themselves with some type religious group but not a lot of people like to talk about it unless it's brought up by someone else in conversation.

Another silly connection between money and religion... "In God We Trust" is printed on American currency. How ironic.

Mounds

Geertz's definition of religion applies to the effigy mounds that the American Indians created in Wisconsin quite nicely. Geertz says that religion "is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." According to some archaeologists and Native Americans, effigy mounds were often representations of earth, sky, and water spirits. Some were built to specifficaly resemble animals and others used more abstract forms. These effigy mounds established a system of symbols that reinforced beliefs and customs in an effort to unite multiple clans in a general concept of the order of existence. That the mounds were physical representations helped to 'clothe' these conceptions with a unique aura of factuality.

Wow, Geertz... that's genius right there.

eh eh eggs

My housemates were dying eggs for Easter yesterday. Someone walked in and asked, "Do I have to love Jesus to dye an egg?" Someone responded, "We're dying eggs for fun! We're not trying to turn you into a Christian."

This exchange would normally catch my interest, but due to my current enrollment in Intro to Religious Studies, I was enthralled.

Here are the things I found most interesting about this situation:
1. People seem to think that 'loving Jesus' and 'being a Christian' are interchangeable terms. I beg to differ. When someone says "I love Jesus" I hear that person speaking of a very personal relationship--two individuals in relation to each other. One person's love of Jesus could be completely different from another person's love of Jesus. Additionally, an individual can love Jesus without subscribing to a set of beliefs/customs/etc. Being a Christian seems to imply a commitment or affiliation to a set of beliefs/customs/etc. within a social group. That is not to say that there can't be overlap between the two ideas--but their inherent meanings are distinctly different.

2. The custom of egg-dying developed as a Pagan practice. The egg has long been a symbol of new life/rebirth and many cultures have utilized this symbol in celebrations of new years and new life in spring time. Egg-dying was adopted by Christians as a way to celebrate the birth/rebirth (resurrection) of Jesus.

With both of these ideas in mind, one's view of the exchange can potentially change from mildly amusing to problematic.

I am suddenly drawn to include the lyrics of a Modest Mouse song entitled "Jesus Christ was an Only Child" in this post:

Well, Jesus Christ was an only child
He went down to the river
And he drank and smiled
And his dad was oh-so-mad
Should have insured that planet
Before it crashed
Working real hard to make internet cash
Work your fingers to the bone sitting on your ass
I know now what I knew then
But I didn't know then what I know now

Penny found out as her hair was styled
You should hide you kids
While the dogs run wild
Jesus Christ was an only child
He went down to the river
And he drank and smiled
And his dad was oh-so-mad
Should have killed that little fucker
Before he even had

Happy Late Easter, I guess.

Wrapped up in myself lately. Perhaps warmer weather will wean me from my worries.

Hello Operator

The depiction
Inscribed
Upon the underside
Of the shoe
That shielded
His toes from the cold
Was of the same
Design
As the one on the other line



Shallow Breaths and--

Set free the laces
Upon your shoes--
Remove your socks as well

Caught in the Act

Freshly powdered predictability shows
On the mustache, in the eyes
And on the tip of the nose
Not offended, just amused

Paleolithic Art and Religion

This chapter gives the reader a very general view of prehistoric religion and a few different theories behind the study of said religion. Jean Clottes and David Lewis-Williams, the authors, immediately set about defining the terms 'ur-religion' and 'prehistory' before delving into the materiel. They define ur-religion as "the hypothetical 'original' religion and prehistory as the time since the origin of humankind (but also including 'pre-human' hominids such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Prehistoric culture and art are also covered in the first half of the chapter. After spending a large amount of time discussing prehistory Clottes and Lewis-Williams began to relate it to religion. The chapter proceeds to offer an array of corresponding theories from over the years. Clottes and Lewis-Williams focus mainly on giving the reader an educational introduction to the study of prehistoric religion and thus all of theories introduced are not really full explanations, just concise definitions.

This article spends a lot of time theorizing about prehistoric humankind's way of life and is very careful to not make any concrete claims. In fact, the entire chapter reads more like a discussion than an informative essay. This was both interesting and frustrating. The broad-minded view the reader is given is obviously necessary when dealing with prehistoric research (since so little information is really known for sure) but the reader feels rather empty-handed at the end of the reading. A lot of information is offered but no overarching claims are made, which is the point of the article in a sense. Clottes and Lewis-Williams are making sure the reader understands how difficult studying prehistoric culture is due to the passage of time and lack of recorded history. The reader knows that she will appreciate the broad scope in the future and that, at least, is reassurring.

I was very interested in the section called Art for Art's Sake. I found it very curious that the majority of researchers from the beginning of the twentieth century onward automatically accept the idea that prehistoric cultures would not have spent so much time adorning the deep inner recesses of caves without some sort of religious or ceremonial intent. Although I am sure there have been a lot of studies that contribute to this acceptance they are not thoroughly discussed in this article. And so, I am left wondering why, why MUST cave art be undeniably connected to religion/ceremony?

Other than that small note I am left pretty much speechless after this read. I mean, I would have an opinion but it sounds too dangerous to develop so quickly...