Category: History

Book Review – Jesus Made in America

Posted on

I recently finished reading Stephen J. Nichols’ Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to The Passion of the Christ (IVP 2008). When I first received this book, I was excited to read it. The concept intrigued me – an historical overview of how the cultural sensibilities of different eras in American history shaped our common conceptions of Jesus. This is a theme I’ve personally explored and one that I believe is little recognized by the church. We all to an extent create Jesus in our own image, and reading the history of that tendency in America captured my interest. What I discovered instead though was a book that although fascinating fell prey too often to the author’s personal biases.

In my reading of the book, I discovered early on a major theological difference with the author that effected my encounter with his theories. Nichols sets up the book with the assumption that there does exist one right way to think about Jesus. In a book about how our cultural background influences our perception of Jesus, I found this assumption to be a bit out of place. There was no acknowledgement that this “correct Christology” might have been influenced by cultural factors, just that it represents right belief that everything else must therefore be deviating from. So it is in light of this basic assumption that Nichols examines the history of Jesus in America. His Christology is the standard that he holds everyone else up to. Of course this results in those he examines being either completely right or completely wrong about Jesus. He goes to great lengths (stretching might better describe it) to prove that the Puritans held to this correct Christology, while others (The Passion of the Christ, Veggie Tales, and CCM for example) fail theologically. It’s a black and white world apparently for him when it comes to understanding Jesus.

This emphasis on correct Christology develops throughout the book. He dismisses many of the cultural portrayals of Jesus because they emphasise relationship or practice over doctrine. He asserts that correct Christology must always be primary for believers. While I respect the need to have a good theology, I question his hierarchical approach. I just can’t picture Jesus stopping himself in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, slapping his forehead, and saying “but what am I thinking! All this stuff I’m telling you to do is great, but what is really going to matter is that over the next few hundred years people are going to debate how best to talk about me, hold councils and votes as to who really is right, and kill those in the minority. Making sure you agree with what the right group says about me will be the primary part of your faith…” Maybe the Bible just forgot to record that part of the sermon.

I honestly agree with many of the critiques Nichols has of popular cultural conceptions of Jesus (I can’t stand Jesus is my boyfriend songs), I am just not as inclined as he is to dismiss them altogether. He assumes that any theory of Jesus is a complete reduction of Jesus to just that theory and so dismisses them as having no redeeming value whatsoever. In what reads as a litany of his personal pet peeves with Christianity, Nichols I believe confuses his personal dislikes with bad theology. His biases against certain groups (hippies, liberals, youth) are strongly displayed. Anything connected to such groups can hold no value for him. So while I don’t believe that Jesus can be reduced to just being a friend, or a revolutionary, or a moral leader I have no problem saying that Jesus does contain those aspects. To ignore those portrayals of Jesus is just as reductionistic and limiting as claiming any one of those encompass fully who Jesus is. And to do so because one is more comfortable with the Puritans than the Jesus People seems like just another case of creating Jesus in our own image in my opinion.

While I found Nichols’ thesis flawed and fairly biased, I do have to say that the cultural history presented in the book makes it well worth the read. The different eras’ portrayals of Jesus are accurate and are useful in helping one to understand what shaped the church today. Knowing that the church hasn’t existed in a vacuum, but has been influenced by culture could possible bring some needed humility to the church (I just wish Nichols had learned from his own writing). I particularly thought that the sections that dealt with faith and politics were the strongest in the book. In those sections Nichols’ historical analysis shines through his personal likes and dislikes and the reader is treated to a well developed perspective on both the Founding Fathers and the contemporary situation.

So I do recommend this book, but with a few cautions. Enjoy the cultural history, but be aware of the author’s presence shaping what you read and in many ways undermining his own thesis. Even so, I found it an enjoyable read.

Read more

Will Blogging Change History?

Posted on

So blogging has already changed the face of journalism, the question is, will it change history? This question arose as an aside in an editorial I was reading earlier today. The piece was about the need for more museums that make an effort to focus on what have typically been the marginalized voices in our society. The point was that by having museums and history books that focus solely on warriors, leaders, and inventors we convey rather blatantly what and who we value in our culture. Such things preserve that which society deems should be preserved and so serves to shape the current culture by imparting values. Social history movements take the time to listen to the other voices – those of women, the poor, migrants, the oppressed. These voices often make up the backbone of a society, but are often ignored and silenced. They are not seen as important enough to listen to so therefore their perspective is not written down as part of history. Who they are and what they value slips away in light of the stories of those who have accomplished “great things.” Including their voices and stories will not only demonstrate that they are valued, but perhaps help demonstrate that society isn’t a monolithic structure that values violence and power above all else.

Listening to the voices on the margins and getting a varied perspective are the goals of this broader approach to how we do history. So given that blogging has in many ways allowed the voice of the average person to be heard (and often even respected), I wonder if it will serve to help pave the way for a shift in historical perspective. Such social history approaches have been present since the 1970s, but haven’t gain widespread acceptance in classrooms that continue to see history as a parade of great names and dates. But today it is easier that ever to explore multiple perspectives on a topic. One isn’t restricted to the party line fed to us by the commercial media or the government. On blogs we can often hear from the people affected most by cultural events (or about such events at all). We are getting used to valuing the voices on the margins and perhaps that will eventually help us alter how we approach history as well.

Read more

Mother’s Day

Posted on

I think a yearly reminder of the original intent of Mother’s Day is always a good thing. A reminder that as women and mothers we can work together for peace, justice, and equality.

Mother’s Day Proclamation – 1870
by Julia Ward Howe

Arise then…women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
“We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.”

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: “Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.”
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace…
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God –
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

And this video (ht: Josh) I think makes a fantastic point about how we raise our kids determining the world they will create. What things do we tell them are important and significant in this world? Do we encourage them towards peace, justice, and equality? Or do we give such things lip service while really conveying to them that money and power are the really important things in life?

Read more

Should Christians Apologize?

Posted on

Over at the Justice and Compassion blog Pam Hogeweide posted her thoughts on the Seeds of Compassion event. While I continue to be amazed at the resistance in the Christian community to even talking about compassion with others, I was intrigued by a sub-conversation that arose in the comments to that post. One commenter in particular expressed her opposition to the idea that Christians should be apologizing for evil done in our collective past. The reasons for her opposition are summed up as follows –

1. People of other religions are jerks too. Why should Christians apologize if others are not expected to as well. She wondered why “Christians [are] the only ones groveling around and begging forgiveness for the disrespectful behavior of only some of the members of their religion?”
2. Christians really haven’t done all that much that is bad. Or at least all the good we have done outweighs the bad.
3. People shouldn’t have to apologize for stuff they were not personally involved in. She wrote, “if YOU have not partaken in toxic Christianity, then I am not sure you need to apologize for something you didn’t do. It is not YOUR fault that others calling themselves Christians have acted like jerks.” For her, “an apology implies some personal culpability.” As an example she wrote, “As a white person, it is not my fault that black people were treated unfairly a century ago. I would take that further even and say that as a white person growing up in the SOUTH, it is not my personal fault. I do not owe black people an apology. (actually, the government is still trying to weasel it out of me via affirmative action: I said I am sorry with the fact that my law school admission doesn’t count as much as if I was certain minorities, whether I wanted to or not).”

Of course others on the thread attempted to engage with her often to no avail, but her perspective haunted me. While she didn’t cross into MD territory and say that we need to be jerks for Jesus, the utter lack of ability to expression compassion for the other surprised me. Her first objection, revealed more of a sense of entitlement than love. Sure I can admit that other religions have done evil as well, but I will not refuse responsibility for my own religion until I feel like other people have taken responsibility for theirs. If I always waited for others to seek forgiveness before I forgave, would I really be extending forgiveness or just gloating in their groveling? I though similarly about her second objection. I don’t think evil is graded on a sliding scale. No amount of good negates the need to take responsibility and apologize for wrong actions. The call for an apology (or the act thereof) is not intended to silence or ignore good done. I’m not a fan of “yes, but” apologies (from my toddler or from adults). Trying to evade responsibility and escape needed amends by attempting to paint oneself in a better light cheapens the apology. There is a time and place for lauding accomplishments, just not as a means of avoiding an apology.

But it is the third excuse that really bothered me. Even if it is true that someone is entirely innocent of wrongdoing, the group they have chosen to associate with is not – and that is how those who have been hurt by that group (or just outsiders in general) will view that individual. Either that individual can act arrogantly and deny responsibility or they can accept what full membership in that group entails – both the good and the bad. Christianity’s main themes are those of mercy and forgiveness. We are willing to accept the “unfairness” or original sin, but are too prideful to accept the unfair baggage our religion carries. It just doesn’t make sense, especially not to the outside world curious about who we are.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any individual Christian can ever truthfully claim to not have partaken in wrongdoing or toxic Christianity. (just like no white person can ever truthfully claim to not have participated in racial injustice in some form or another). Beyond the fact that just the act of denying responsibility for Christianity’s evils appears as self-centered toxic Christianity to many, most Christians today are living the benefits of Christendom – benefits that came at the expense of others. American Christians are living with the wealth and resources of “Christian” operations like Manifest Destiny and attempts to “Christianize and civilize” other nations (mostly as an excuse to rape their land of it’s resources). The denominations and doctrines we bicker about exist because they were the ones willing to slaughter and torture dissenting viewpoints. Ministries and churches are built (and get rich) on messages of hatred – give money to help Israel kill those Palestinians, or to make sure our students don’t know gay people exist, or to support the IRA, or even fund corrupt dictators and conflict diamond schemes in Africa. It’s hard to be an American Christian and not be connected to some group involved in such things. So even if you have never Bible-bashed, manipulated someone to say a prayer, or burned someone at the stake most Christians are receiving the benefits of toxic Christianity. There is no out of sight out of mind excuse than can work. The connection to wrongdoing is there and if we have compassion at all for those we have hurt, we will take responsibility to apologize if not make amends.

In a way this is about getting over “me-centered” Christianity. One’s faith isn’t just an individual thing, disconnected from history or the rest of the world. We are part of a community of believers and (like it or not) we need to be willing to fully be a part of that community. Recognizing the faults present there is a necessary first step to helping make things better and to understanding why others view us the way they do. Sure it can be uncomfortable when someone lays the blame of say the Crusades or hurtful statements by Dobson, Robertson, or Driscoll fully on you. But it seems more in line with the way of Christ to admit such things are wrong and apologize for them instead of getting angry and attempting to defend yourself or them. Of course, I haven’t always done a good job at this, but it is a habit I am attempting to develop. I’ve discovered that choosing to identify with a community can be a struggle, but it also is vital to growing a deeper and more holistic faith that focuses on loving God and others and not just myself.

Read more

Religion Fit for Public Consumption

Posted on

I was reading about the history of Christianity in America the other day and I came across an interesting phrase. The author was addressing the ongoing need in our nation for there to exist “a religion fit for public consumption.” Such a religion of course serves not only to unify people but to create decent and compliant citizens. In essence it exists as both the opiate of the masses and the backbone of the country. It is something the Founding Fathers saw as a necessary element in creating a society even if they imagined themselves above participating.

I was struck at how tied to such a religion we Americans tend to be. This is a religion that dovetails with our lives as they already are. It shores up our economic systems, promotes civic duty and pride, and never attempts to challenge the status quo. It meets basic spiritual needs, helps create healthy social networks, and helps promote moral systems. Such a religion is safe, fit for public consumption, FDA Approved so to speak.

So it is no wonder that religious movements that challenge the civic system are derided or labeled heretical. Instead of appropriately keeping the system running, these religious movements counter-culturally offer revolutionary challenges. They don’t support life as it already is, but offer alternatives that question the basic assumptions and values of such ways. Their leaders ask hard questions and make uncomfortable statements. These religions are less about something the public consumes and more about leading lives of transformative justice, love, and mercy. You know the sort of stuff the Bible refers to as “true religion.”

These aren’t religions that form the backbone of a nation. Anything that retains the right to question the nations will never get it’s stamp of approval. A religion that actually affects the lives of its followers in radical ways is not “a religion fit for public consumption.” It never will be. So why do I still see more churches caring about being fit for public consumption than about following true religion? How have we been so deceived into idolatry?

Read more

The History of Cooking

Posted on

I recently caught part of a documentary on the history of cooking classes (yes, I was watching the Food Network).  I was struck by how the story behind something as basic as cooking revealed gender inequalities.  Essentially in pre-WW2 America, cooking was seen as woman’s work.  There was nothing glamorous or special about preparing food, it was just a means to the end of getting fed.  The first cooking classes were offered to poor women to teach them a skill they could use to earn a meager living (generally as a cook/maid for a wealthy family).  But after WW2 all of that changed.  The men who had learned to cook as soldiers returned home from war and sought to earn a living using their new-found skills.  All of a sudden cooking and working in newly created restaurants became a respectable middle class occupation that earned a decent living.  But of course it was only after men blessed the cooking world with their presence that cooking earned respect as a profession.   Even still everyday cooking is still considered woman’s work and gathers little respect, while professional cooking is dominated by men and is highly respected.

Hearing stories like that frustrates me.   To be reminded of what low value women have been given historically is sobering.  Our accomplishments and our work are deemed unimportant and not worthy of respect or decent pay (until men decide to join in as well).  The cynical side of me wants to call for more men to be stay-at-home parents to see if that will actually raise the respect level for that particular occupation.  I’m sure if enough men start doing it, they’d somehow start being paid to be a dad as well.

Not that I think any profession should ever be restricted to just men or women.  We all should be given equal respect (and pay) for whatever job we undertake no matter our gender.  But given the realities of history and our world today, that doesn’t always happen.  Women often don’t receive respect for their work and are still the minority in many fields dominated by men.  Often men don’t want to share the respect of their particular career with women (are they selfish or do they think we are not worthy?) or they don’t understand the difficulties women find when trying to enter those fields.  So as unfair as some have called it, it takes men sponsoring/encouraging/endorsing/apprenticing women to help us break into those fields as equals for women to even begin to be respected in the same way men are.  And while I don’t full agree that  it is unfair to help others, in these situations the inequality is even more unfair than the assistance, so why not “be unfair” in a positive way instead of a negative way?

I know this is just a typical gender issues rant, but the documentary irked me.  It of course presented the evolution of the cooking profession as a good thing no matter how telling it was of the rampant sexism in our country’s history.  I just wish the story would be different every once in awhile.

Read more

Book Review – Inspiration and Incarnation

Posted on

I just finished reading a book that I highly recommend for others to read. Not because I agreed with everything in it or because it is necessarily spiritually transformative, but because it presents a constructive, faith affirming approach to a topic that is generally written about in destructive ways.

A few months ago Scot McKnight recommended to me Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. This book explores some of the difficult questions regarding cultural influences on the Bible, the diversity of theological views present in it, and whether or not it is necessarily unique. These are not new questions and have been bantered around the academic world for some time now, but most lay accessible books on these ideas take one of two negative approaches. They either present these cultural and historical facts in order to prove that the Bible is not to be trusted and that therefore Christian faith is misguided. Or the books are written from a defensive standpoint in order to generally deny the validity of the historical facts so as to prove the Bible trustworthy. These agendas on both extreme are lacking for the reader who is not persuaded to give up either her faith or her intellect.

Peter Enns’ book takes a third way in its approach to the conversation. It apologetically assumes an evangelical faith in scripture from the outset and then sets out to explore the historical details in light of that faith. On this approach, the author writes –

The way we can begin to address this issue is to confess at the outset, along with the historic Christian church, that the Bible is the word of God. That is our starting point, a confession of faith, not creating a standard of what the Bible should look like and then assessing the Bible on the basis of that standard. If we begin with the confession that the Bible is God’s word, that it ultimately comes from him, that it is what the Spirit of God wanted it to be, that there is no place in all the messiness of the Old Testament where God says, “Oops, I didn’t really mean to put it that way – I’d like to try again, please” – if we begin there, we have the freedom to look honestly and deeply at what God is doing in the Bible.” p108

I appreciate that perspective. Instead of pretending to be objective in trying to prove one’s agenda, I appreciate knowing the author admits the particular lens he is using to view the Bible. It isn’t the only approach out there, but I found it refreshing as it led to an exploration of scripture that didn’t create a false hierarchy between scripture and history. It is that acceptance of an interpretive tradition and embracing of one’s cultural context that I’ve found lacking in most evangelical treatments of this subject.

Enns places the Bible and modern evangelicals firmly in their historical settings. About the Bible he writes, “It was not an abstract, otherworldly book, dropped out of heaven. It was connected to and therefore spoke to those ancient cultures.” p.17 and “That the Bible, at every turn, shows how ‘connected’ it is to its own world is a necessary consequence of God incarnating himself”p20. The issues arise when both conservatives and liberals approach the Bible expecting it to be something it is not. When we desire for the Bible to speak only to the issues of a modern scientific society we display our arrogance in assuming that we are the only one’s God has ever cared about conveying his word to.

The book then presents three issues that have generally not been handled well in evangelical theology. First it explores why the Bible looks so much like other Ancient Near East literature. Then it looks at the theological diversity present within the Bible itself. And finally it looks the sometimes weird (and generally out of context) ways in which the New Testament authors make use of the interpretive traditions of their day to interpret the Old Testament. Basically, is the Bible really unique, does it have integrity, and how should it be interpreted? Each discussion is fascinating and is helpful in that it is very open about the difficult parts of scripture. The result is a unique perspective that sees the Bible as the inspired word of God, but that embraces its very human and cultural elements as God’s incarnation to us. We can therefore appreciate its diversity instead of deny it and allow the Bible to be what it is instead of what we wish it would be. So if these are issues you have ever struggled with or are just mildly curious about, I highly recommend this book as an easy, informed, and faith-affirming approach to the subject.

Read more

Conquistadors and Peace

Posted on


When I was in Santa Fe last week, we spent one afternoon doing the tourist thing. As we wandered around the city, we paid a visit to the Cathedral. Apparently the most famous relic in the Cathedral is a statue of Mary. I was a bit puzzled when I saw the sign that gave its name. All the signs there are written in both Spanish and English so I wasn’t surprised to see two names in those two languages listed. But I was surprised to read “La Conquistadora” and “Our Lady of Peace.” Last time I checked “conquistador” meant “conqueror” and not “peacemaker.” Obviously this wasn’t a matter of direct translation. So I decided to read up on the story. What follows is a very brief, cut and pasted history of the statue and Santa Fe.

The City of Santa Fe was originally occupied by a number of Pueblo Indian villages with founding dates between 1050 to 1150. The “Kingdom of New Mexico” was first claimed for the Spanish Crown by the conquistador don Francisco Vasques de Coronado in 1540. Spanish colonists first settled in northern New Mexico in 1598.

During the next 70 years, Spanish soldiers and officials, as well as Franciscan missionaries, sought to subjugate and convert the Pueblo Indians of the region. The indigenous population at the time was close to 100,000 people, who spoke nine languages and lived in an estimated 70 pueblos.

In 1680, Pueblo Indians revolted against some 2,500 Spanish colonists, killing 400 of them and driving the rest back into Mexico. The conquering Pueblos sacked Santa Fe and burned most of the buildings. From those burning buildings, the Spanish rescued the oldest statue of Mary in America, brought to New Mexico in 1625. In “exile” De Vargas made a vow to Mary that they would enthrone her as their Queen back in the Cathedral of Santa Fe if she would permit their taking their former property without bloodshed. In trust the Spaniards returned. The Indians for an unknown reason withdrew from their stronghold and Governor Vargas entered Santa Fe without opposition. Within four months, 23 pueblos of 10 Indian nations had been conquered and 2,000 Indians converted without the loss of a single life. The Mary statue returned to Santa Fe and has since become a cultural icon.

Originally known as Our Lady of the Rosary or Our Lady of the Conquest, she is currently called Our Lady of Peace. She is best known as La Conquistadora.

So she’s called “Our Lady of Peace” because the Spanish were able (the second time around) to kick the Indians off of their land without the use of violence. This symbol of dominion and empire is revered as a religious icon of peace. Wow. Is our faith still that messed up?

Peace as conquest that avoids bloodshed. That is what the Kingdom message of Jesus has been reduced to here. Imposing our wills onto others, taking away people’s homes, and forcing them to abandon their culture is revered as peaceful. And apparently the whole town throws a big Fiesta each year in honor of this statue and all it symbolizes. (and don’t get me started on the value of this 29-inch wooden Lady of “Peace’s” extensive wardrobe…). If this is the understanding of peace that we promote – that which merely avoids bloodshed no wonder we are having such a hard time understanding the issues behind America’s cultural domination of the world. We not only bring violence, but even our “peacekeeping” teams are conquerors and destroyers.

I think “peace” is a word that needs to be reclaimed. To be stripped from its associations with empire and dominion. To be returned to an active word that goes beyond passivity or just avoiding violence. Peace as working to restore relationships, peace as respecting others, peace as encouraging the oppressed. Peace as love not control.

Read more

[Grid::Blog::Horizon2107]

Posted on


I wanted add my thoughts to the Gridblog started by Bob Carlton on “what does the year 2107 look like from your vantage point.” What to imagine? Should I be cynical or utopian? Will we be suffering from the environmental devastation of our planet or will we be on the road to sustainable living? What about war? Poverty? Religion? It was in looking back at what the world was like 100 years ago that helped me determine what to speculate about for the future.

Apparently, 100 years ago tomorrow New Zealand and Newfoundland became dominions of the British Empire (the step between being a colony and a Commonwealth). The word dominion dates back to at least the 17th century within the British Empire, referring generically to any British overseas possession. A country populated with indigenous people that another country has taken possession of and imposed their government, morals, and religion on. That’s the exposure that other cultures were having to Christianity 100 years ago – a belief system forced upon them generally in ways that made them easy to control. It was the old mantra of “colonize, Christianize, and civilize.” To be a Christian in those settings meant aligning oneself with the empire of oppression.

Not a whole lot has change in the past 100 years, but the past decade or so has seen the emergence of voices of those oppressed peoples. Voices that attempt to affirm the truth of Christianity apart from its marriage to colonial powers. And this Christianity in its attempts to set itself up as a countercultural alternative to Empire (gee, does that sound familiar?) is flourishing. So I wonder how this will play out 100 years from now. As Christianity assumes a local flavor in these autonomous countries briefly held as colonies and dominions, how will that change the global face of Christianity? Will the Western philosophies and theologies so central to our debates and arguments (Calvin anyone?) be usurped by local ethnic theologies? Will the numbers game naturally shift the power of Christianity from the Global North to the Global South?

For all the talk the emerging church does about rediscovering the fuller Gospel of the Kingdom (a good thing imho), I wonder if it is just setting the stage for the rise of the (soon to be?) formally marginalized voices. In this imagined future, the Church might actually have the potential to be a truly communal gathering of every tongue, tribe, and nation. A gathering that isn’t built on patronizing attempts at domination, but mutual respect and love. That is the optimistic view of the future I want to see.

Read more

Rejection, Redemption, and Roots

Posted on

The topic for this month’s SynchroBlog is Christianity and Paganism. I had a hard time narrowing down what I wanted to say about the topic because I’ve been struggling recently with the paradigms for how one interacts with other belief systems. So I decided to just write about that struggle and give my opinion of three of the most common approaches Christians have in interacting with Paganism. There are of course various other approaches and this is not at all an in depth (or coherent) look at any of these, just what has been floating through my head recently.

1. Rejection – This is the approach I grew up with and which I see displayed most commonly in Christian circles. The idea is that since the other cultures are not explicitly Christian, they cannot contain truth or that which is good and therefore must be rejected. Other cultures are devoid of God and are places of darkness. If we interact with those cultures we could be tainted or wooed into the darkness. This approach leads to such common cultural practices as banning books like Harry Potter, not participating in Halloween (and sometimes even Christmas), and freaking out about stuff like yoga. Growing up I wasn’t allowed to read fantasy books (other than Narnia) and while we were allowed to go trick-or-treating, Halloween was downplayed and we often attended church Harvest Fests dressed as Bible characters. The yoga issue has recently come up once again in the conversation in the recent Pagitt/MacArthur interview on the subject. MacArthur summed up the whole rejection mindset with his statement, “Why would Christians want to borrow an expression from a false religion?” If there is nothing good there, no truth there – why bother interacting? They say the Christian response should be rejection and not embrace.

My issue with the rejection mentality is the limits it places on God. It claims that God can only work in a very small segment of the population and is not big enough to be found in other cultures and religions. But even the Bible shows that Christians can engage with other cultures and find truth there. Just take the Acts 17 account of Paul at Mars Hill to see that he quotes “pagan” philosophers as containing truth about God. So obviously if the Bible displays engagement as opposed to rejection, it cannot be the best approach to the issue. As C.S.Lewis wrote, “if you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all other religions are simply wrong all through … you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of truth.” This isn’t about all religions being equally true, its about letting truth be truth wherever it is found. Which leads us to…

2. Redemption – For Christians who choose to see God’s truth all around us, a common approach to interacting with other cultures and religions is to redeem the good that is in them. One lays claim to truth (or beauty or the good) in other cultures and “baptizes” it for Christian usage. This is a process that St. Augustine referred to as the Egyptian Gold principle. When the Israelites fled Egypt the Bible tells us they “plundered the Egyptians,” taking much gold (in the form of idols) with them into the wilderness. The gold eventually came to be used in the Tabernacle – the very dwelling place of God. Its pagan associations were erased and it was redeemed for usage in worshiping God. This principle has been used by Christians throughout the ages to justify our involvement in pagan practices. Our holidays with pagan roots (Christmas, Easter, and occasionally Halloween) were all, over time, shaped into celebrations central to the Christian belief system. These holidays are now so Christian that many people are unaware of the pagan connections at all. This approached has also been applied (with lesser degrees of success) to practices like yoga. The idea is to take something you like from another culture, change some aspects of it to give it a Christian feel, and then feel complete freedom to engage with it. (and before you go there I am not in any way talking about cultural practices that are sins).

My issue with this approach is how oppressive and imperialistic it is. Essentially it chooses to steal what it likes from other cultures and write the rest of it off as worthless. The things that get “redeemed” are warped into mere shadows of what they were originally intended to be. There has been enough imperialism and rape of other cultures associated with Christianity, that to continue to discuss the interaction with other cultures in this language is generally demeaning and offensive. But the voices from the margins – those who have been oppressed and demeaned – is generally not heard or respected in Western Christian circles. With our imperialistic cultural values we really don’t care about how we are perceived by others or what damage we do along the way. We often think that Jesus being the end justifies whatever means we employ to get to him. That said, I don’t think the answer is then to resort back to rejection or cultural isolation.

3. Roots – I am currently exploring this approach not as the best answer out there but to understand a different way of interacting. This method seeks to understand the origins, or roots, of various cultural beliefs and practices. By seeing the history of something, one can see how it can evolve and grow. This is not about changing something through forms of violence, but learning to love and appreciate that which is other. I am all for admitting and discovering the pagan roots for things like Christmas and Easter. For all that Christians talk about getting back to the “true meaning” of those holidays, we forget the long history they represent. I want to affirm that history and respect that something I hold as dear to my beliefs has roots in the beliefs of others. I want to explore how the theology I hold to has been shaped by interactions with other cultures. How the Jews were influenced by the Zoroastrians in Persia or how prevailing political agendas influenced the popularity of various theories of the atonement. Everything has a history, everything is connected. Theology, culture, religion – they all grew out of something and fed off of each other as they grew. So as a Christian interacting with other cultures and beliefs, I want to learn from what they are offering to teach me and enter into a dialogue with them. I want to help give those on the margins a voice – the voice that has often been denied them in the name of Christianity. In being with dialogue with them I will of course take away parts of their culture and who they are. But I hope that I will be accepting a gift instead of violently acquiring. And I know that that dialogue will change the culture and change me – that is how cultures and people grow.

The issue with this – it’s hard. It’s hard to be invited to interact and learn. It’s hard to dig through the layers of history to reclaim roots and celebrate growth. It is hard to convince most Christians that others deserve to have a voice and that they have something to offer. It’s hard to remain in a church that cries “heretic” at those of us that seek the truth in these ways. It’s really hard to love that which I don’t yet understand.

Others offering reflections on Christianity and Paganism in this SynchroBlog –
Matthew Stone at Journeys in Between
Christianity, Paganism, and Literature at Notes from the Underground
John Smulo at JohnSmulo.com
Heathens and Pagans and Witches … oh my! at Calacirian
Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
Erin Word at Decompressing Faith
Chasing the Wild Goose at Eternal Echoes
Visigoths Ahoy! at Mike’s Musings
Belief and Being: The difficulty of communicating faith at Phil Wyman’s Square No More
Steve Hollinghurst at On Earth as in Heaven
Undefined Desire at Igneous Quill
A Walk on the Wild Side at Out of the Cocoon
Observations on Magic in Western Religion at My Contemplations
Tim Abbott at Tim Abbott
Spirituality and the Zodiac: Stories in the Cosmos at Be the Revolution

Read more