Saturday, May 11, 2013

Top Five Movie Lists

Blog Song For the Moment

Richard Burton, Camelot, from 1960 Original Broadcast Recording.

Apropos of nothing, I'm presenting my top five movies of all time (my time, anyway).  Not feeling well, missing a dinner with dear old friends from Wabash days (did manage to make their daughter's commencement at MSU in which she received her M.D.), and I'm tired of trying to keep up with Lost's plot twists.

My brother, Dan, has been working on a careful way to measure a movie's value, but I developed these lists without too much thought.  My criteria were basically two, what stands out in my immediate memory as being memorable, what would I watch again without much question.  So here goes.  You'll see that my lists don't go back further than the sixties--except for Wizard of Oz and Singing in the Rain.  My brother is much more cinematically literate--his favorites include movies from the 1950s and 1940s.  And you'll see that movies could be in other categories (e.g. Dr. Horrible, to my mind, could be a cop and crime flick, or in the comedy or drama categories).  The order within each list is according to when I thought of them.


Top five dramas
            The Year of Living Dangerously (1982)
            Quiz Show (1994)
            Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
            The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
            Dr. Zhivago (1965)



Top five comedies
            Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)
            Monty Python’s Meaning of Life (1983)
            Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
            Raising Arizona (1987)
            Dr. Strangelove (1964)




Top five horror
            Poltergeist (1982)
            Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
            Mulholland Drive (2001)
            Psycho (1960)
            Silence of the Lambs (1991)


Top five romances
            Out of Africa (1985)
            Broadcast News (1987)
            Terms of Endearment (1983)
            Accidental Tourist (1988)
            When Harry Met Sally (1989)


Top five with spiritual themes
            Doubt (2008)
            Donnie Darko (2001)
            Flesh and Bone (1993)
            Magnolia (1999)
            Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)




Top five guilty pleasures
            Angel Heart (1987)
            Wild Things  (1998)
            Lost Boys (1987)
            Basic Instinct (1992)
            Underworld (2003)

Top five war movies
            Platoon (1986)
            Gallipoli (1981)
            Breaker Morant (1980)
            Apocalypse Now (1979)
            The Thin Red Line (1998)




Top five musicals
            Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along-Blog (2008)
            Camelot (1967)
            Wizard of Oz (1939)
            Funny Girl (1968)
            Singing in the Rain (1952)

Top five cop and crime
            Godfather I (1972)
            Godfather II (1974)
            Miller’s Crossing (1990)
            The Departed (2006)
            Cop Land (1997)



Top five sci-si/fantasy
            Brazil (1985)
            Alien (1979)
            Princess Bride (1987)
            Serenity (2005)
            Wall-E (2008)


Top five Latin American
            City of God (2002)
            Kamchatka (2002)
            The Secret in Their Eyes (2009)
            The Official Story (1985)
            The Silence of Neto (1994)


Top five documentaries
            Hoop Dreams (1994)
            Roger and Me (1989)
            The Fog of War (2003)
            Spellbound (2002)
            Jesus Camp (2006)

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Book Review: A History of Christianity, The First Three Thousand Years. Or, An Agnostic's Reason Why He Is Still Fascinated With His Religious Heritage

Blog Song for the Moment
Bach, Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80: Aria: Komm in mein Herzenshaus, with soprano solo by Joanne Lunn.  From Bach, J.S.: Cantatas, Vol. 20--BWV 5, 48, 56, 79, 80, 90, 192, Conductor John Eliot Gardiner (2000)

I suspect I picked up Diarmaid MacCulloch's History of Christianity not just because it was named one of the 100 notable books of 2010 by the New York Times Book Review, but because of his name.  I pictured a tonsured Scottish monk, sometime in the 9th century, scrawling away in a candle lit cell, one ear listening for marauding Vikings. He's actually a 21st century history professor at Oxford.

While I've read numerous histories of Christianity, particularly its US variant, this is the first one that I know of by an author with whom I share a similar religious biography (most social science and history authors obey the empiricist premise that their biographies are irrelevant to their objective work).  He has the "happiest memories" of growing up in the Anglican Church (his grandfather and father were clergymen), he "was brought up in the presence of the Bible, and [he remembers] with affection what it was like to hold a dogmatic position on the statements of Christian belief." While no longer an orthodox believer, he describes himself as a "candid friend of Christianity" with an "apophatic form of the Christian faith," which, if I understand the term, means he believes in God, but doesn't think any hard and fast claims can be made because God is beyond human ken (p. 11, paperback edition). He doesn't talk about why he is now just a "friend" and not a believer, though in a biography posted elsewhere, he apparently left the Anglican church in 1988 over its hostile position on homosexuality (MacCulloch had been a member of the "Gay Christian Movement" since 1976).

My spiritual life has followed an analogous path.  I treasure my memories of growing up in Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, where I attended kindergarten, took catechism classes and was confirmed.  The good people of Good Shepherd cushioned my adolescent travails, tolerated my foray into fundamentalism and youthful, fiery critique of Lutheranism, welcomed me back as a Sunday School teacher, musician, youth group leader, and assisting minister, and joined in celebrating my marriage.  Good Shepherd fed my love of music, shaped and sharpened my intellectual world with study of the Bible and church teachings that didn't simply fill me with dogma, but, and I'm realizing this now, encouraged me to be a critical reader and thinker.

Jesus People Expo, Dallas, TX, 1972
From http://www.one-way.org/jesusmovement/
That critical faculty, in part, explains why I left the church and my faith, though I'm not going to attribute my apostasy to it alone.  I know lots of critical thinkers who hold onto their faith.  I suppose in my case it was a matter of intellectual choices I made in in my twenties in reaction to a series of crucial experiences.  From around the age of 16 to 20 (1976-80), I was in what I now refer to as my "fundy period."  I imagine I was caught up in the last wake of the "Jesus People" movement--an evangelical Christian riff on the the Sixties' counter-culture movements--part of which would fold into the country's general lurch to the right in the Reagan years (interestingly, in 1980 I didn't vote for Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter, but the environmentalist Barry Commoner, a harbinger of my own impending lurch to the left). A bad experience in a scandal-ridden mega-church led me to doubt all religious authority, to doubt anyone who claimed to know "the Way." A near simultaneous break up with my first serious girlfriend no doubt contributed to my spiritual doubts--I'd thought our relationship was somehow divinely sanctioned.  An important part of a neo-evangelical teaching is learning to hear God's voice (see the anthropologist T.M. Luhrmann's fascinating investigation of this in When God Talks Back).  I thought I'd heard a thumbs-up from God on our relationship.  But I heard lots of messages that turned out to be me just talking to myself--though I'm sure veteran practitioners would say I'd given up too soon and too easily.  So when I realized I had been clueless about God's will for my life, I began to question the whole enterprise of divining providence, especially when others divined it to mean things that ran against my views--still gelling at the time--on social justice, equality, and the environment.  In other words, I was coming to believe that Christianity was too often a convenient rationale for political positions.  It was unfair of me to lump all Christians together in this perspective, and I think now it was my youthfully earnest but simplistic riposte to the equally simplistic critiques coming out of the growing religious right in the early 1980s.  Still, it's interesting that a recent sociological study by David Campbell and Robert Putnam (discussed in an earlier post) found that the number of people not affiliated with a particular church has been climbing in recent decades, and the current young generation--a third of which reported no religious affiliation in 2011--cite conservative politics as the reason for not joining.  Perhaps I was one of many canaries in the coal mine.

San Francisco La Union, Quetzaltenango, a Mayan village
in the Guatemalan western highlands.  My wife, Margo, and
I lived there as Peace Corps volunteers from 1986 to 1988.
Peace Corps sort of sealed the deal.  Three and half years in Guatemala as a volunteer (1984-88) broke the pattern of church-going and the continual contact with a faith community. 'Use it or lose it,' they say, but I should add that I didn't really have the time to miss my life in the church. In that hiatus from my relatively secure, sedate life in the States, I was the "other" for a change, and on top of doing my job as a 4-H club promoter and informal agricultural extensionist, there was a great deal of work--emotional and intellectual--in navigating Guatemala's physical, social, and cultural terrain (and I made many, many wrong turns along the way).  That experience put into relief much of what I had taken for granted as middle class male WASP from the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world (for example, my bloated notions of the virtue of punctuality, or of individualism).  And I guess I took to heart something a Peace Corps trainer said early on, something like, "when facing the differences you will inevitably face, don't think 'how weird!'  Instead, think 'equally logical, just different.'"  That's a pretty relativistic stance to take on the world, but it's one that helped me get through some tough moments when I knew I had absolutely no idea of what was going on around me, or when I felt so misunderstood.  And I saw what happened to some gringos--volunteers, US AID or Embassy staff, and ex-patriots--who could not or would not accommodate the new environment because of their universalist premise--that their world-view and way of life were and should be applicable everywhere, or were superior to those of others.  They were, at best, mystified, but more often than not they were arrogant, condescending, or just bitter.

I cannot say that I consistently avoided displaying similar features during my Peace Corps stint, but,  getting back to the point of this little bio, it was the practice of a relativist approach (hardly absolute, mind you--I'm no nihilist) that replaced my attachment to Christian doctrine, chunks of which I already tossed out by the time I reached Guatemala.  I simply could no longer believe Christianity's claims of exclusivity.  Along with that, my intellectual journey took me in a direction opposite of that I had followed in my fundy period--from looking for a dependable dogma that would clarify the world for me, I shifted to a willingness to live with murky questions and uncertain answers (Okay, another parenthetical aside, sorry. A Barna study on why young adults who were regular church-goers in their teens now no longer attend, captured some of what was going in my youth thirty years ago. Two of its six reasons were that young adults "wrestle with the exclusive nature of Christianity," and "The church seems unfriendly to those who doubt").

So, I no longer am affiliated with the church. I can no longer recite the Apostles' or Nicene Creed with belief, nor identify as a Christian except in the most general way.  It is my unescapable heritage, after all.  But I nodded 'yes' when I read:
I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems.  I live with the puzzle of wonderment how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species (p. 11).
This appreciation and wonder are never distant in this 1000 page tome.  MacCulloch begins the story  with the ancient Greeks and Hebrews, a millennium before Jesus, setting up a cultural context for early Christians--an intellectual world in which Jewish idea of an "intensely personal deity [that] was nevertheless the God for all humanity" competed and in some ways blended with a Greek philosophy in which God is "all-perfect, therefore immune to change and devoid of the passion which denotes change" (p. 2, paperback edition).

This is one of the central tenets of this work--the varied roots of a religion that many of its practitioners today do not likely realize.  Thus, the "Bible speaks with many voices" (p. 6). One voice was that of the author of the Gospel of John.  Consider its "great opening hymn" (p. 103).
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God." All things came into being through Him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being.  In Him was life, and the life was the Light of the men.  The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.  (John 1: 1-5 NASB).
In just a few sentences, the author of John collapses all history, turning the story of Jesus into one narrative strand stretching from creation to the crucifixion.  All of the past was prologue for the present.  God created the world, made the Hebrews his "chosen people," whose prophets would predict the coming of a Messiah, who did indeed appear, though not just as a deliverer of the Jewish nation, but as redeemer of the entire sinful world.

It is beautiful poetry, but as MacCulloch notes, the author of John's use of logos (Word), as well as Christos, tells "us what a tangle of Greek and Jewish ideas and memories underlies the construction of Christianity" (p. 19).  And this tangle of origins and factors only gets more dense as we walk through the history, from Christians trying to find a secure place in the Roman Empire, to the institutionalization of Christianity within the Roman Empire, to the spread of Christianity throughout the Near East, Northern Africa, Asia, and Europe, regions which had independent effects on Christianity, or perhaps we could say, Christianities (so telling that my spell-checker insists I've misspelled that).

That's another tenet, the splintering of Christianity along overlapping regional and doctrinal lines.  John's "Word," would be read and spoken in very many different ways in the early centuries of Christianity. There were stormy debates over the how to reconcile Christ's human and divine natures, disagreements over the still nascent trinitarian theology, among many other doctrinal disputes.  And then there were the "heresies," variations on Christianity that challenged different aspects of an orthodoxy that was eventually constructed, from the Gnostic rejection of the idea that the divine Christ was fully human to the Manichaean argument that humans lived within an ongoing, evenly matched battle between good and evil.  There was a "sheer variety of Christianity from its earliest days: a vital lesson to learn for Christians who wish to impose a uniformity on Christian belief and practice which has never in fact existed." (pp. 176-177).

MacCullough dots the book with these little shots over the bows of orthodoxy.  For example, some of the early biblical scholars argued against a literal interpretation.  The 3rd century Origen wrote:
'who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life, of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?'
"Origen might be saddened," MacCullough writes, "to find that seventeen hundred years later, millions of Christians are that silly" (p. 151).  The Bible, according to this early Church father, is not to be read as accurate history, but as stories with divinely inspired truth.  But that is about as harsh at the author gets in this generally genial account of Christianity.

A dryly witty one at times, too.  He writes that a turning point in Augustine's life was an encounter with ambitious bureaucrat who questioned his ambition after reading about Christian ascetic in the book Life of Antony:
Now Augustine determined on his own abandonment of ambition, leaving his teaching career to follow Antony's example--after a fashion, for his was to be the life of the desert minus the desert and plus a good library (p. 303)
Well, it made me chuckle.

I suppose I have two issues with this history.  As I've noted, he examines the Jewish and Greek roots of Christianity, but talks little about other syncretic origins of today's Christian beliefs and rituals--the blending of Christian practice with preceding "pagan" religions (e.g., Christmas superimposed over the Roman Saturnalia; various saints attached to prior deities, like Mexico's La Virgin de Guadalupe, a Christian reincarnation of the Nahua goddess, Tonantzin), or intriguing similarities between Christian myths and others, such as the story of the flood (think Gilgamesh, or the Native American Indian story about Mt. Jefferson in my beloved state of Oregon), or the widespread version in ancient stories of a virgin woman giving birth to a god, or a god dying and then rising from the dead (as suggested in Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, or artfully referenced in Neil Gaimon's American Gods).

Another is his contention that gender is at the center of surge of religious fundamentalism, not just in Christianity, but other major faith traditions.
Why? I would hazard that the anger centres on a profound shift in gender roles which have traditionally been given a religious significance and validated by religious traditions. It embodies the hurt of heterosexual men at cultural shifts which have generally threatened to marginalize them and deprive them of dignity, hegemony or even much usefulness--not merely heterosexual men already in positions of leadership, but those who in traditional cultural systems would expect to inherit leadership (p. 990).
No doubt MacCullough's personal struggle with his church over homosexuality is one reason he settled on the gender factor, and he backs his claim with sociological findings that religious fundamentalism has been "especially attractive to 'literate but jobless, unmarried male youths marginalized and disenfranchised by the juggernaut of modernity'" (p. 991).  And for sure the Catholic church and later Protestant denominations have made control of sexual behavior a key component of doctrinal teachings--from Catholic Marian cults and celibacy, to Protestant holiness movements segregating men and women, with strict rules about fraternization between them (I remember the sober instruction during my fundy days that any sexual contact with a woman outside of marriage, including french kissing, was fornication).

But Christian fundamentalism in the US surged and coalesced in the early 1900s, and fundamentalist ire centered on the theory of evolution and literary criticism, both of which challenged a literalist approach to the Bible.  The 1925 Scopes trial--a legal challenge to the prohibition against teaching evolution in a public school--sent fundamentalists into a retreat from politics, but the point here is that gender was at best an indirect factor in this development (the first wave of feminism had won the vote with the 1920 19th Amendment).  Also, there are many, many women who affiliate with fundamentalist churches.  "Modernity" is not just about shifting gender roles, but an array of factors that challenge religious orthodoxy in the US--not just science and its bogeyman, evolution, but growing religious pluralism.

But these are minor quibbles.  I highly recommend the book to anyone looking for a thorough, global survey of the history of Christianity.  It isn't hagiography.  But it's certainly not the opposite.  MacCulluch's passion for the story of Christianity is obvious.  His tone is not one of "Look how awful those Christians have been," though I suppose some could read it to gather ammunition against Christianity.  Rather, it's as if MacCulloch wants us to shake our heads along with him, wondering over the incredible origins and development, and rapid spread and diversification of Christianity.


Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Post Inaugural Hangover?


The New York Times today reports that some Republican members in Congress are rethinking the absolutist stands they have been taking.
“We’re too outnumbered to govern, to set policy,” said Representative John Fleming, a Louisiana Republican who has taken confrontational postures in the past. “But we can shape policy as the loyal opposition.”
Even my Tea Party Rep, Justin Amash, is sobered:
“The public is not behind us, and that’s a real problem for our party,” said Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a Republican who has clashed with his party’s leadership.
It's too bad more GOP Reps didn't come to the same conclusion a few years ago.  If they had, then maybe Congress might have been able to accomplish more, and be viewed more favorably by the public.  According to Public Policy Polling:
Congress is now less popular than root canals, NFL replacement referees, head lice, the rock band Nickelback, colonoscopies, carnies, traffic jams, cockroaches, Donald Trump, France, Genghis Khan, used-car salesmen and Brussel sprouts.
Still, Democrats have contributed to that lack of popularity.  A Gallup poll last August reported that views of their party were slightly worse than that of Republicans.



In short, Democrats had better stay sober, too.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Postscript to Minor Rant on Conspiracy Theories

Blog Song for the Moment

Angelo Badalamenti, "Dance of the Dream Man," Twin Peaks (1990)

Perhaps some of the few who read this blog may wonder why I often have a knee-jerk reaction to conspiracy theories of this sort, and why I rarely can keep my satirical scorn in check.  I have been asking that of myself today, and I think I've boiled the answer down to these points.

1) A significant part of my occupation and vocation is research and writing (though I've done more of the former than the latter), as well as passing on my learning about research methods and writing to students.  The conspiracy theories that get passed on to my Facebook page, or that I run across while wandering through the web, violate the rules of evidence and logic that govern my work  (admittedly, not always successfully).  Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient; nor are generalizations from an individual experience.  Claims about this or that should be based on two or more sources.  Sources should be read with their origins and context in mind (not only who produced it, but for what, under what circumstances, for what audience, etc.).  So theories about things such as President Obama's origins, or his intentions, that are based on evidence ripped out of context, or are based on syllogistic logic, won't get the time of day from me.  Actually, I consider them an effrontery.  Fear-mongering without merit.  Hence my mild outrage.

2) An idiosyncratic reason: I immediately discount any conspiracy theory that I've noticed before in the history of our country, e.g., dangerous, diseased, immoral immigrants; a non-Christian fifth column in the country (Catholics, communists, Muslims); the US succumbing to some other power, whether a secretive elite, those Rothschilds, the Trilateral Commission, or the UN.

3) Another idiosyncratic reason: I also tend to dismiss claims made by pundits or bloggers who affix "Dr." before their name, often a PhD not related to their topic at hand, a sign of intellectual insecurity to me, and an effort to legitimize otherwise shoddy reporting and investigation.

4) But more important, these conspiracy theories distract us from real problems and challenges at hand. Think of all the intellectual energy spent on them rather than current issues such as balancing civil liberties with national security (Congress just renewed the Executive's foreign surveillance powers), or assuring long-term economic stability while addressing grievous economic stress in the here and now (the "fiscal cliff"), or reconciling the claims of marginalized groups with the values of the majority (e.g. gay rights).

All that said, it's not just been President Obama's race that has encouraged them (though clearly many of the theories about him share the premise that he's not one of us, not a part of "real America" as Sarah Palin put it).  There have been small cabals of the powerful that have done measurable damage to our polity, economy, and foreign affairs--I'm thinking Vietnam, Watergate, the Savings and Loan crisis, the Iran-Contra affair, the Enron debacle, as well as the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  I imagine some think, well, if that can happen, why not this more grandiose "X" conspiracy theory?  The difference is, though, these were ill-advised or ill-intentioned policy choices, ones challenged rather quickly, though not ameliorated very well at all.

And finally, I realize that there are left-wing conspiracy theories, too, that are equally specious. Off the top of my head--Oliver Stone's JFK assassination as attempted military coup (JFK), the US empire engineers everything bad in the world (e.g., Empire's Workshop), to the alleged sympathy of the Bush II administration towards right-wing Christians advocating theocracy (here, for example).

So, professor that I am, I'm asking those who repeat conspiracy theories--please do your homework.

MoJo's summary of Obama conspiracy theories


Blog Song for the Moment

Tom Waits, What's He Building in There?  Mule Variations (1999)

A couple of months ago, Mother Jones created a venn diagram summarizing all the wingnut conspiracy theories about Obama (below, or you can access the original article here)
 
My favorite: President Obama is actually a "lizard overlord" (just can't believe people buy this--clearly, he's an aardvark).

MJ could have added the viral rumor that the Obama administration handed China "eminent domain" rights in the US as collateral for debt owned by China (another one that's obviously untrue--the evidence is that all the Chinese restaurants are actually the collateral).

Or there's the one about Obama's intentions to give up US sovereignty to the UN (intentions?  It's already happened folks!  We're already duped!  That's the power of Obama.  Don't look into his eyes the next time you see him on TV unless you've covered your head with foil.)

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Letter to Governor Snyder: Please Veto SB 59


Dear Governor Snyder,

I urge you to veto Senate Bill 59, recent legislation permitting Michigan gun owners to carry concealed arms in public places.

I teach at Grand Valley State University, and in no way will I feel safer with armed amateurs around me--I'll instead feel more insecure.  The eight hours of extra training proposed in the legislation hardly eases my mind.  The undependable benefit of an armed amateur stopping a mass slaying, itself a minute possibility, does not match the costs of multiplying the chances of accidental or intentional gun violence on campus (I'm thinking: alcohol + irritability over grades or noisy neighbors or just the angst of youth + gun = possible horrible result).  A 2011 New York Times article surveyed the data on the relationship between crime and concealed weapons in states with permissive laws: “...Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue, economists and law professors, concluded that the best available data and modeling showed that permissive right-to-carry laws, at a minimum, increased aggravated assaults.”  As well, the article further reports, loose oversight of the law in places such as North Carolina has resulted in a spate of violence by permit-holders with records of felonies, substance abuse, and mental illness (Michael Luo, “Guns in Public, Out of Sight,” December 26, 2011).

More generally, this law means we both succumb to fear and increase it, hardly the basis for a healthy civil society.  I agree with Jill Leporte's point made in an April 2012 New Yorker piece ("Battleground America"):
Gun-control advocates say the answer to gun violence is fewer guns. Gun-rights advocates say that the answer is more guns: things would have gone better, they suggest, if the faculty at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Chardon High School had been armed. That is the logic of the concealed-carry movement; that is how armed citizens have come to be patrolling the streets. That is not how civilians live. When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left.
Please, Governor, do not give in to those who think the answer to social ills is a gun, to those who have twisted the ideal of liberty into a right to assuage their individual, and often exaggerated, insecurity with concealed weapons, and thereby contribute to public insecurity.

Sincerely,
Andrew Schlewitz

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Why, God, oh why another mass murder? Because He's peeved...

In the wake of the news of the horrific mass slaying Friday in Newtown, Connecticut, I saw this image posted on Facebook:




My reaction was to think that whoever was posing as God here must think God's pretty weak and capricious.  Despite his power, he can't get into secular schools, and since he can't, it's people's fault if they suffer a horrific tragedy.  Talk about 'blaming the victim.'  And it seems grotesque to me to think that God would make the killing and traumatization of a school and community--which no doubt included many of his believers--an object lesson for the rest of us.

But maybe I'm wrong.  The author of the universe, the all-powerful God, according to the far-right evangelical, Bryan Fischer, will not go where his invitation has been revoked, not because he's a vampire, but because he's courteous. There is a strict etiquette, after all, governing divine providence:
We kicked God out of our public school system.  And I think God would say to us, 'Hey, I'll be glad to protect your children, but you gotta invite me back into your world first. I’m not going to go where I’m not wanted. I am a gentleman.  You know, I think back to when I was in elementary school, we had prayer in schools, and we...didn't...need...guns. I'm gonna repeat that. Back when we had prayer, the Bible, and the Ten Commandments in schools, we...did...not...need...guns! (you can find this excerpt here, about eight minutes into the broadcast)
A more well-known and sedate evangelical, Mike Huckabee, agreed, in a Fox News interview:
“We ask why there’s violence in our schools, but we’ve systematically removed God from our schools...Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?”
I suppose I should be used to this by now.  Chatting with Pat Robertson on the 700 Club, the late Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on "the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way..."  Pastor John Hagee, infamous endorser of John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, told Fresh Air's Terry Gross that Hurricane Katrina was the "judgment of God" on a city that had a "level of sin offensive to God." And, turning back to the 700 Club, Pat Robertson attributed the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti to a Haitian deal with the devil back during the revolt against the French at the beginning of the 19th century.

So the logic here is that when a people disobey God's will--that is, do not follow fundamentalist Christian tenets--then God visits them with natural disasters or mass slayings, or permits them to occur.  Conversely, then, the more prevalent fundamentalist Christianity is in a given community, or among a people, there should be fewer disasters and mass slayings.  There should be fewer violent casualties in general.


If true, then why do Cubans, under a harshly secular communist regime, suffer significantly less from hurricanes and tropical storms then nearby Guatemala, where evangelicalism is flourishing? (See report on Cuba here, and news story on Guatemala here).  Why do Western European countries, far more secular than the US, experience far fewer mass slayings and gun-related deaths than the US?  As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein noted, "15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last fifty years took place in the United States. . .in second place is Finland, with two entries."  And as is obvious in the numbers below, there's a lot more bloody gunplay in the US than in countries that former presidential aspirant, Rick Santorum, once described as "dead from a faith perspective."


Country                   Homicide Rate by Firearms (per 100,000)

Belgium                     0.68
Denmark                    0.51
England/Wales           0.07
Finland                       0.45
France                        0.06
Germany                    0.19
Netherlands                0.33
Norway                      0.05
Portugal                      0.41
Spain                          0.20
Sweden                      0.41
United States              2.97
Source: The Guardian "Gun Homicides and Gun Ownership by Country"

I suppose, though, that a theology that poses a vindictive divine providence doesn't require empirical support.  After all, there is that convenient rebuttal: God works in mysterious ways.  And it's not a surprise that this kind of perspective on God's character should be prevalent among some Christians, like Fischer and Huckabee, who take a literalist approach to the Bible.  Think about how Moses had to talk God out of destroying his people for their idolatry (Exodus 32: 7-14), or how God helped the ancient Hebrews slaughter tens of thousands in their conquest of the Promised Land (Jericho, among other examples in the book of Joshua).  Or there's Jephthah vowing to God that, in exchange for divine help in the battlefield against the Ammonites, he will sacrifice the first thing he sees when he returns home.  God helps him win, and the first thing he sees turns out to be his daughter.  And he fulfills his vow (Judges 11: 29-40).  Really, the body-count at the hands of God or his human instruments is pretty incredible.


I know, though, that there are other sides to God's character in the Bible--his mercy and lovingkindness extolled in Psalms 145, for example, or his commitment to what today we would call social justice (see my favorite prophet, Amos), and there is, of course, the God of the New Testament, and the repeated lessons in the Gospels and the Epistles about loving one another, and being vehicles of God's love: "A new commandment I give to you, Jesus said, "that you love one another, even as I have loved you" (John 13:34), "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13), "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12: 31), or the well-known passage from 1 Corinthians 13, "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous..."

And I am sure that Christians such as Fischer and Huckabee would not reduce God to moments where his providence allegedly results in slaughter.  I imagine they would agree with this evangelical's take:
It is true that the Bible contains graphic stories of sin, evil, and death. But it also includes the overarching grand story of love, redemption, and grace. It showcases a God who asks us to not criticize Him about His acts of justice, but instead One who kindly encourages us to come alongside Him and grieve over a world that has misused the gift of freedom given it to do wrong instead of right. When that happens, and God acts in His righteousness, the world discovers that consequences exist for evil behavior, which is something the prophet Isaiah speaks to: “At night my soul longs for You, Indeed, my spirit within me seeks You diligently; for when the earth experiences Your judgments the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness” (Isaiah 26:9, excerpt from "Is the God of the Old Testament a Merciless Monster," by Robin Schumacher).
Still, when Christians turn calamities such as the Sandy Hook school massacre into a proof, unverifiable though it is, of their religious critique, I am not chastened, much less edified.  I hear only a self-righteous, smug 'This is what you get and deserve for not agreeing with my particular religion.'

But I am grateful for the many Christians I know who do not share this smugness. I don't share the faith, but appreciate how they live out theirs, and I'll close with words of Paul Duris, a Foursquare pastor and my brother-in-law, posted on Facebook last Friday:
This is a day of mourning for all of us. I feel numb. But I've been thinking about the words from Romans 12:21, "Do not be overcome by evil...overcome evil with good." We can't stop hate, but we can be the ones that do good. We can raise the bar of kindness and love with the next person we talk to. We can be the ones that overcome evil with good.