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.