#paul's letter to american christians

[tomorrowusa]

Something for Martin Luther King Day

On Sunday 04 November 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered a sermon at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. The inspiration for this homily was an imagined Epistle which the Apostle Paul sent to Americans.

Here is an excerpt from that sermon dealing with economic justice.

Paul/MLK had criticisms of capitalism though he was no fan of communism with its consequent totalitarianism.

This sermon appears as Chapter Fourteen in the book Strength to Love.

It also appears in The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., Volume III: Birth of a New Age under the title "Paul's Letter to American Christians".

Dr. King would certainly have had something to say about this recent report.

World's richest five men double wealth — Oxfam

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

American Christians, you may master the intricacies of the English language and you may possess the eloquence of articulate speech; but even though you speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, you are like sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. You may have the gift of scientific prediction and understand the behavior of molecules, you may break into the storehouse of nature and bring forth many new insights, you may ascend to the heights of academic achievement, so that you have all knowledge, and you may boast of your great institutions of learning and the boundless extent of your degrees; but, devoid of love, all of these mean absolutely nothing. But even more, Americans, you may give your goods to feed the poor, you may bestow great gifts to charity, and you may tower high in philanthropy, but if you have not love, your charity means nothing. You may even give your body to be burned, and die the death of a martyr, and your spilled blood may be a symbol of honor for generations yet unborn, and thousands may praise you as one of history's supreme heroes; but even so, if you have not love, your blood is spilled in vain. You must come to see that a man may be self-centered in his self-denial and self-righteous in his self-sacrifice. His generosity may feed his ego and his piety his pride. Without love, benevolence becomes egotism and martyrdom becomes spiritual pride.

—Martin Luther King Jr, Strength in Love, Paul’s Letter to American Christians pp 162-63 (1963

[Robert Scott Horton]

[eagna-eilis]

Ach-To and Irish Archaeology

The sequels were my entry into Star Wars and I never would have gone to see The Force Awakens if I wasn't an archaeology nerd.

During the production of Episode VII, a decent number of people with an interest in our archaeological heritage here in Ireland were quite worried about the impact of filming on one of our only two UNESCO World Heritage Sites, the island known as Skellig Michael down off the coast of Kerry.

I went to the film to see if any potential damage was worth it, or if they'd do something unspeakably stupid with it in-universe. I wanted to see if it was respected.

And holy hell I was NOT disappointed. I think I walked out of TFA sniffling to myself about how beautiful the Skellig looked and how it seemed like its use as a location was not just respectful but heavily inspired by its real history.

See, Skellig Michael was a monastic hermitage established at a point when Christianity was so new that the man who ordered its founding sometime in the first century CE was himself ordained by the Apostle Paul. The fellah from the Bible who harassed all and sundry with his letters, THAT Apostle Paul. This is how old a Christian site the Skellig is. It predates St. Patrick by at the very least two hundred years.

The steps we watch Rey climb were originally cut NEARLY TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO. They have been reworked and repaired many many times since, of course. Still, the path the camera follows Daisy Ridley up is as much an ancient path built by the founders of a faith in real life as it is in the movies.

A hermitage was a place where monks went to live lives of solitude and asceticism so as better to achieve wisdom. The practice is common to many of the major world religions, including the myriad East Asian faiths which inspired the fictional Jedi.

It is said that the hermitage and monastery were originally built with the purpose of housing mystical texts belonging to the Essanes, one of the sects of Second Temple Judaism which influenced some of the doctrines of Christianity. They also, according to what I have read, characterised good and evil as 'light' and 'darkness' and were celibate.

As such, the use of the island in TFA and TLJ does not merely respect Skellig Michael's history, it honours it. It is framed as somewhere ancient and sacred, which it is. It is framed as a place where a mystic goes to live on his own surrounded by nature that is at once punishing and sublime, which of course it was. It shown to be a place established to protect texts written at the establishment of a faith, which it may well have been.

This level of genuine respect for my cultural heritage by Rian Johnson in particular is astonishing. I don't think anyone from outside the US ever really trusts Americans not to treat our built history like it's Disneyland. Much of the incorporation of the Skellig's real past into a fictional galactic history occurs in TLJ, which is why I'm giving Rian so much credit.

It's Luke's death scene which makes the honouring of Irish archaeological history most apparent though.

Johnson takes the archaeological iconography back a further three thousand years for his final tribute to my culture's beautiful historical temples. This time, he incorporates neolithic passage tomb imagery, specifically that of Newgrange, which is up the country from the Skellig.

I think if you understand what the image represents then it makes a deeply emotional scene even more resonant.

The scene I'm referring to is Luke's death.

As he looks to the horizon, to the suns, we view him from the interior of the First Jedi Temple. The sunset aligns with the passageway into the ancient sanctuary, illuminating it as he becomes one with the Force.

As for Newgrange, every year during the Winter Solstice it aligns with the sunrise. The coldest, darkest, wettest, most miserable time of the year on a North Atlantic island where it is often cold, wet, and miserable even in the summer. And the sun comes up even then, and on a cloudless morning a beam of sunlight travels down the corridor and illuminates the chamber inside the mound.

You guys can see this, right? The similarity of the images? The line of light on the floor?

Luke's death scene is beautiful but I think it's a thousand times more moving with this visual context. Luke's sequel arc isn't merely populated by a lore and iconography that honour the place where the end of his story was filmed, I think that incorporation of that history and mythology honours Luke.

We don't know for sure what the Neolithic people believed, religion-wise. We know next to nothing about their rituals. We know that there were ashes laid to rest at Newgrange. There is some speculation that the idea was that the sun coming into the place that kept those ashes brought the spirits of those deceased people over to the other side.

It's also almost impossible not to interpret the sunlight coming into Newgrange as an extraordinary expression of hope. If you know this climate, at this latitude, you know how horrible the winter is. We don't even have the benefit of crispy-snowwy sunlit days. It's grey and it's dark and it's often wet. And every single year the earth tilts back and the days get long again.

The cycle ends and begins again. Death and rebirth. And hope, like the sun, which though unseen will always return. And so we make it through the winter, and through the night.

As it transpired the worries about the impact of the Star Wars Sequels upon Skellig Michael were unfounded. There was no damage caused that visitors wouldn't have also caused. There also wasn't a large uptick in people wanting to visit because of its status as a SW location, in part I think because the sequels just aren't that beloved.

But they're beloved to me, in no small part because of the way they treated a built heritage very dear to my heart. I think they deserve respect for that at the least.

[vital-information]

"In 1946, the term 'homosexuals' appeared for the first time in an English Bible. This new figure appeared in a list of sinners barred--according to a verse in the Apostles Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians--from inheriting the kingdom of God. The word change was made by leading Bible scholars, members of the translation committee that labored for over a decade to produce the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible. With an approach inspired by text-critical scholarship, many of their choices upset readers of the older King James Version, the favored Bible of Protestant America since the colonial era. Amid the outrage over other changes--to the red-letter words of Jesus and the old Shakespearean idiom--another modernizing innovation went virtual unremarked. Two enigmatic Greek nouns, referenced in the King James as 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind,' now appeared as a single, streamlined 'homosexual.' Subsequent Bible commentaries approached the new term as age-old tradition...

Some Bible readers, however, responded with surprise to this textual change. In everyday use, the verse in I Corinthians had other meanings. The author of a 1956 advice book on how to write sermons recounted the embarrassing tale of one minister's well-loved sermon. That sermon, delivered on various occasions, expanded on the 'general meaning' of the Apostle Paul's reference to the 'effeminate,' which the pastor took as warning against 'the soft, the pliable, those who take the easy road.' The take-away point was that Christians must undertake the difficult path of faith. It was a fine sermon, or so the pastor thought, until he read the RSV. He discovered 'to his amazement and chagrin; that 'effeminate' was translated 'homosexuals.' The confusion was a lesson, the author of this advice book chided, on the need to use recent translations. A check through earlier Bible commentaries confirms that outdated reference tools may indeed have contributed to this pastor's error. An eariler edition of The Interpreter's Bible, published in 1929, said nothing at all about homosexuality in its commentary on the same verse in I Corinthians. It noted that the Apostle Paul was keenly aware of the 'idolatry and immorality' of the pagan world. However, the named vice that so perturbed the apostle was 'self indulgence of appetite and speech,' an interpretation that more readily fit with the pastor's call to a disciplined faith. If Christianity did indeed set itself against homosexuality from the first, then this popular Christian reference text neglected to make that prohibition clear.

Several scholars of American religion have puzzled over the peculiar silences of early twentieth-century Christian texts on the topic of same-sex sexuality. After surveying the published Christian literature of that time, Randall Balmer and Lauren Winner concluded that during those decades, 'the safest thing to say about homosexuality was nothing.' They note that even the published commentary on 'sodomy,' which would seem to be the clearest antecedent to later talk about homosexuality, yielded little that would illumine a long tradition of same-sex regulation. Although many Bible reference tools mentioned that damnable 'sin of Sodom,' the muddled and circular commentary on this 'loathsome vice' offered little that clarified its nature. Historian Rebecca Davis, on her own hunt to find Christian teachings about homosexuality, similarly notes the profound absence in early and mid-twentieth century Protestant literature--and especially in the writing by conservative fundamentalists. 'The extant printed record,' she observes, 'suggests that they avoided discussions of homosexuality almost entirely.' Adding further substance to this void are the findings from Alfred Kinsey's study of the sexual behavior of white American men, conducted between 1936 and 1946. The study suggested that Christians, although well acquainted with the sinfulness of masturbation and premarital intercourse, knew very little about what their churches had to say about same-sex acts. 'There has not been so frequent or so free discussion of the sinfulness of the homosexual in religious literature,' Kinsey wrote. 'Consequently, it is not unusual to find even devoutly religious persons who become involved in the homosexual without any clear understanding of the church's attitude on the subject.' Before the 1940s, the Bible's seemingly plain condemnation of homosexuality was not plain at all.

...

What this book [Reforming Sodom] shows is that the broad common sense about the Bible's specifically same-sex meaning was an invention of the twentieth century. Today's antihomosexual animus, that is, is not the singular residue of an ancient damnation. Rather, it is the product of a more complex modern synthesis. To find the influential generators of that synthesis, moreover, we should look not to fundamentalist preachers but to their counterparts. Religious liberals, urbane modernizers of the twentieth century, studiously un-muddled the confused category of 'sodomitical sin' and assigned to it a singular same-sex meaning. The ideas informing this shift germinated out of the therapeutic sciences of psychiatry and psychology, an emerging field of the late nineteenth century that promised scientific frameworks for measuring and studying human sexual behavior. Liberal Protestants were early adopters of these scientific insights, which percolated through various early twentieth-century projects of moral reform. Among the yield from the convivial pairing of medicine and morality was the midcentury translation of the RSV. The newly focused homosexual prohibitions evidenced the grafting of new therapeutic terms onto ancient roots. The scores of subsequent Bible translations produced in later decades adopted and sharpened the RSV's durable precedent. In the shelves of late twentieth-century translations and commentaries--none more influential than the 1978 New International Version, which quickly displaced the King James as America's best-selling Bible--American Christians read what might be called a 'homosexualized' Bible. Instead of the archaic sinners and enigmatic sodomy talk found in the King James, these modern Bibles spoke clearly and plainly about the tradition's prohibition against same-sex behavior. The subsequent debate about the implications of these self-evident meanings overlooked a nearly invisible truth: the Bible's plain speech about homosexuality issued from a newly implanted therapeutic tongue."

Heather R. White, Reforming Sodom: Protestants and the Rise of Gay Rights

[beguines]

While the Historical Paul has been subject to a dizzying array of historical reconstructions, what is rarely questioned is the assumption that whatever Paul is historically reconstructed via these operations will serve as a foundational figure for ethics, morality, politics, and theology. Cut away some pseudepigrapha here, contextualize an embarrassing statement over there, build a few analogical links between his context and ours, and we will get a Paul that can ground our ethics. Of course, not everyone in the field is invested in Paul's continuing relevance, but I think most Pauline scholars are interested in him because, at some level, they are convinced that a properly historicized Paul has something to say to their corner of (post)modernity.

A good example of how this process works is Eric C. Smith's recent monograph Paul the Progressive? Smith, a historian of early Christianity, writes for a progressive Christian audience while drawing from the rhetorical techniques of historicism to transform Paul into a modern progressive ally: "After years of studying Paul within the academic field of biblical studies, I have come to see [Paul] as one of the most misunderstood figures of the Bible and the Christian tradition. . . . The Paul that is revealed in careful study of his letters is nothing like the person so many progressive Christians hate, and, in fact, he shares many progressive Christian values".

[ . . . ]

Take, for example, Smith's chapter on Paul and slavery. He is at pains to absolve Paul of criticism for the historical support that the apostle's archive has given to slavery, ancient and modern. His approach takes several steps, some of which follow his scholarly "ground rules." First, he subtracts from Paul any references to slavery that come from deutero-Pauline literature (notably Ephesians, Colossians, and the pastoral Epistles). This gets rid of the most baldly pro-slavery passages in the Pauline archive. Turning to the uncontested letters of Paul, Smith argues that Paul's advice to slaves in 1 Corinthians 7 to remain in their state is much more ambiguous than most modern translations suggest and that Paul might be encouraging slaves to take the opportunity to gain their freedom if the possibility presents itself. But even this reading of Paul's advice hardly counts as "progressive." Manumission was a regular part of ancient slavery, something many slaves could count on and expect. Manumission was also used by ancient slavers as an inducement to good behavior that ultimately served as a means of maintaining the system itself, a point made forcefully by Jennifer Glancy. Paul's advice to slaves, charitably read, was to work within the system as it was set up.

[ . . . ]

We might think that accepting the institution of slavery would disqualify Paul as a progressive, but this is where Smith's rhetorical moves subtly shift the goalposts. First, he compares his pared-down Paul with the worst excesses of the American slave system, which gives the impression that Paul was not that bad. Pointing to the explicitly pro-slavery statements in the deutero-Paulines, Smith concludes that "it was not Paul's writings that were to blame, or Paul himself, but it was the misuse of Paul, both deliberate and accidental," that put him on the side of slavery as an institution. Smith assumes that the Christian texts written after Paul in his name represent a betrayal of Paul's theological vision. He does not entertain the possibility that these later devotees of the apostle saw him as an ally in their support for the ancient status quo and not as a problematic progressive needing to be contained.

Second, Smith recontextualizes Paul so as to take away the blame somewhat for his acceptance of slavery. He does this by claiming Paul believed that the world would soon end, thus making him less likely to try to overturn accepted social institutions. Paul's world was one in which slavery was normal, and he should not be blamed for accepting slavery as a given. Finally, Smith can conclude that Paul was not a "slavery apologist," which is the question that frames the entire chapter. What is so rhetorically clever here is that the entire chapter sets the goalposts in the most convenient location for Smith: Paul is absolved of being a full-throated supporter of slavery. What Smith has shown is that Paul accepted slavery as normal; he even felt comfortable enough playing with the terminology of human enslavement in his own self-descriptions. This hardly strikes me as an argument that Paul ought to be reclaimed as a progressive.

Even Smith seems somewhat abashed at making such an argument: "With the help of modern biblical scholarship we can recover a Paul who is far from a slavery apologist, and who might even be an ally in the struggle for emancipation". Smith's tepid endorsement of a Paul who "might even be an ally" should force us to ask the question, At what cost have we paid for Paul's own emancipation from his entanglement with slavery? Smith has pared Paul down, recontextualized him, lowered the bar, and still can't produce a Paul who can say that slavery is wrong, full stop. What are we saying to readers who have lived with the historical weight of the Pauline archive's support of slavery when we ask them to welcome someone who only "might" be an ally in their struggle? This strategy is what Joseph Marchal has recently called "pinkwashing Paul," in which a progressive figuration of the apostle is offered, "while ignoring or downplaying his letters' ambivalences, complicities, and recapitulations of imperializing and sexual naturalizing trajectories." More to the point: Why is Paul's purity so important? Why does he have to be the hero of our historical work? Must we value (or revere?) the corpora we study?

Cavan Concannon, Profaning Paul

[odinsblog]

“Oh America, how often have you taken necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes.”

- MLKjr, Paul’s Letter to American Christians, 1956

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

hello :)

First off I’d like to apologize because I only recently discovered your blog at a time of great need, and have been reblogging so many posts lol so sorry if that’s annoying.

I’m in my early twenties, it’s almost my birthday, and I was born into a family with two affirming Catholic parents and three affirming siblings of various beliefs. I’ve pretty much always been comfortable with the fact that I am not heterosexual, and tend to have some beliefs that are not reallllllly accepted by mainstream American Christianity. Because of this, your blog has been incredibly comforting, informative, and thought provoking, so I thank you for that.

I was wondering if you had any resources for how different denominations thought of nature and wild spaces. I know there’s a lot of garden imagery within the Bible, such as in the Song of Songs, but I was always taught in my religious teaching that wild spaces, such as mountains and forests, were like realms of the devil or something. One verse that was pretty common in my local church is something about filling the deserts and leveling mountains to make a path for God (sorry if I’m remembering that incorrectly). Because I’ve only been to Catholic Churches, I was wondering if other groups and denominations had different views on nature rather than untamed = bad and taming the environment = good.

Thank you and have a nice day

Hey there, anon! Not annoying at all to reblog posts, that's what they're here for ^-^

My Catholic self is so happy to hear that your Catholic family is affirming of who you are!

I'm sadder to hear that you were taught much less affirming things about the created world. You are so right to have noticed that the Bible is chock-full of praise for creation! The twisting of Christianity to say otherwise has a long history with an intentional agenda of justifying settler colonialism and environmental devastation.

___

I wish I had more time to look through specific denominations' points of view for you, but if I wait till I do have time I'll probably never get around to answering this, alas! I can provide this much, at least:

One term that some use when describing their support of environmental justice is "Creation Care" (or "earth care"), so that's a good key phrase to use when researching.

For example, here's the Episcopal Church's page on creation care; and the UMC's, and a Catholic site; and a PCUSA site; and the UCC's...

However, I'm not sure that views on the natural world always split neatly on denominational lines anyway. Moving beyond the denominational, I'll loosely describe some of the viewpoints in Christianity around Creation:

Thanks to Paul incorporating a lot of Greco-Roman ideology into his letters that made it into the Bible, and thanks to Christianity getting entangled in Roman Empire shit in like the 400s CE, some Christianity uplifts a strong dualism between the spiritual and the material. When you pit the spiritual and material against each other in this way, it tends to be bad news for the natural world.

The belief expressed throughout the rest of the Bible — so the Hebrew Bible + much of the Gospels — doesn't construct this binary between the spiritual and the physical. The created world is declared good by God in Genesis 1, and Creation is praised throughout the Psalms and other scripture. The place of human beings in the created world is explored in various parts of the Bible, with various conclusions being drawn — are we in charge? What's it mean to be in charge? Is the whole planet ours to do with as we please, or are are we meant to care for it?

A major example of Christians deciding that the planet is ours to do with as we will comes in the form of the settlers who colonized the Americas. Research manifest destiny for lots of info on the consequences of these views. The Americas, and this whole planet, are suffering greatly because of this way of interpreting the Bible. Thankfully, there are other ways.

The Catholic Church itself actually has a healthier way of understanding Creation in theory, even if the institution doesn't always make choices that practice what they preach. Here's a bit of what the Roman Catholic Catechism says about the natural world:

339 Each creature possesses its own particular goodness and perfection. For each one of the works of the "six days" it is said: "And God saw that it was good." "By the very nature of creation, material being is endowed with its own stability, truth and excellence, its own order and laws." Each of the various creatures, willed in its own being, reflects in its own way a ray of God's infinite wisdom and goodness. Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things which would be in contempt of the Creator and would bring disastrous consequences for human beings and their environment.

340 God wills the interdependence of creatures. The sun and the moon, the cedar and the little flower, the eagle and the sparrow: the spectacle of their countless diversities and inequalities tells us that no creature is self-sufficient. Creatures exist only in dependence on each other, to complete each other, in the service of each other.

341 The beauty of the universe: The order and harmony of the created world results from the diversity of beings and from the relationships which exist among them. Man discovers them progressively as the laws of nature. They call forth the admiration of scholars. The beauty of creation reflects the infinite beauty of the Creator and ought to inspire the respect and submission of man's intellect and will.

There's a lot more — check out the Catechism's section on "the visible world" (you have to scroll to it) on this webpage.

_____

Ultimately, in the search for interpretations of Christianity that uplift the goodness of Creation, and our role not as masters but as stewards of it, I highly recommend digging into the works of Indigenous Christians. As white Christianity colludes with empire and wreaks having on the land, Indigenous Christians speak up for the goodness of God's creation.

A fabulous starting point is Native: Identity, Belonging, and Rediscovering God by Kaitlin B. Curtice. It's a short memoir, very readable and powerful.

Rescuing the Gospel from the Cowboys by Richard Twiss is a little denser, but extremely informative. You can also find interviews and the like with Twiss online, if reading is less your thing.

My own Christian faith has also been deeply enriched by non-Christian Indigenous authors — especially Robin Wall Kimmerer, whose book Braiding Sweetgrass changed my life. I was so inspired by her description of human beings not as the masters of creation but as the "little siblings of Creation" that I wrote this poem about it.

Many Black and Latine theologians have also been integral to me in shaping my understanding of Creation and humanity's place in it. Another memoir I highly recommend is This Here Flesh by Cole Arthur Riley, which talks about a variety of things, including a bit on the natural world. Take this passage, for example.

Finally, there are some gorgeous writings on Creation from Medieval Christians like Francis of Assisi and Hildegard von Bingen.

One last couple of book recs for a look at the holiness of creation: Barbara Brown Taylor's An Altar in the World and Sister Macrina Wiederkehr's A Tree Full of Angels.

___

I hope this helps somewhat! If you haven't already, you might enjoy wandering through my #Creation tag too.

[madamlaydebug]

The Destruction of Black Civilization and The Origin of African Civilization by Chancellor Williams were challenged at the Prince George County high school libraries in 1993 because the two volumes were said to promote “racism against white people.” In a complaint filed with the state, the works were called “racist pornography” written “to provoke emotions and actions of racial prejudice, bias, hatred, and hostility towards citizens and students in Maryland.”

A widely read history of Africans well researched analysis details the development of civilization in Africa. Now ask yourself, what information is contained in this they really did not want you to know? And do you know it?

Challenged and Banned Books by and about African Americans

Young and Black In America by Rae Pace Alexander

1983—After the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union sued the Elk River School Board, the Board reversed its decision to restrict the title to students who have written permission from their parents. (MN)

And the Walls Came Tumbling Down by Ralph D. Abernathy

1989—Burned protest in Denver because it alleges that Martin Luther King, Jr. was involved with three women. E. Napoleon Walton, the publisher of the Denver Cosmopolitan Advertiser, stated, “[Abernathy] has his freedom of speech, and we have our freedom to burn it.” (CO)

And Still I Rise by Maya Angelou

1982—Challenged at the Northside High School in Lafayette, Louisiana. (LA)

1987—Challenged at the Longview school system in Washington because some “students could be harmed by its graphic language.” (WA)

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou

1983 – 2009—Over thirty-five challenges in twenty states since the book’s publication.

2009—Challenged in the Newman-Crows Landing School District on a required reading list presented by the Orestimba High English Department. A trustee questioned the qualifications of Orestimba staff to teach a novel depicting African American culture. (CA)

Another Country by James Baldwin

1963—Considered obscene, the book was banned from the New Orleans Public library. After a year of litigation, it was restored. (LA)

Blues for Mister Charlie by James Baldwin

1980—Challenged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota because it’s “pornographic,” and it “tears down Christian principles.” (SD).

Go Tell It on the Mountain by James Baldwin

1994—Challenged as required reading in the Hudson Falls Schools because the books has recurring themes of rape, masturbation, violence, and degrading treatment of women. (NY)

1998—Challenged as a ninth-grade summer reading option in Prince William County because the book “was rife with profanity and explicit sex.” (VA)

If Beale Street Could Talk by James Baldwin

1989—Removed from the St. Paul High School Library because the book contains obscene language and explicit descriptions of sexual activity. (OR)

Tell Me How Long the Train’s Been Gone by James Baldwin

1983—Four members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee called for its rejection because Baldwin’s work preaches “bitterness and hatred against whites.” (AL)

The Toilet by Amiri Baraka

1969—Expurgated at Eastern High School to eliminate “four-letter words or vernacular.”

Manchild in the Promised Land by Claude Brown

1974 – 1987—Challenged five times in four states. (WI, FL, LA, OH, OR)

1987—Challenged at the Parkrose High School because the content is “violent, the language offensive, and women are degraded.” The protestors also questioned its relevance, claiming that Parkrose students have no need to understand life in a black ghetto. (OR)

A Hero Ain’t Nothin But a Sandwich by Alice Childress

1976 – 1994—Challenged five times in five states. (NY, GA, TX, MD, SC)

1976—Removed from Island Trees School Union Free District High School library along with nine other titles because they were considered “immoral, anti-American, anti-Christian, or just plain filthy.” (NY)

Rainbow Jordan by Alice Childress

1986—Challenged at the Gwinnett County public schools because of “foul language and sexual references.” (GA)

1986—Banned from Spokane middle schools because the book’s storyline about a prostitute’s daughter was “too mature.” (WA)

Soul on Ice by Eldridge Cleaver

1969 -1979—Challenged five times in four states. (CA, CT, NY, WA)

1975—Challenged at the Greenwich High School library because the book is “crime provoking and anti-American as well as obscene and pornographic.” (CT)

Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison

1994—Retained in the Yakima schools after a five-month dispute over what advanced high school students should read in the classroom. Two parents raised concerns about profanity and images of violence and sexuality in the book and requested that it be removed from the reading list. (WA)

2013—North Carolina school board considers banning the book after the mother of an 11-grader complained, claiming Ellison’s work was inappropriate for 11th grade summer reading, citing both language and subject matter.

The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman by Ernest J. Gaines

2006—Challenged as an eighth-grade district-wide reading assignment in the Puyallup schools because “racial slurs and stereotyping are used throughout the book, as well as scenes of sex, rape, and implied incest.”

A Lesson Before Dying by Ernest J. Gaines

2004—Removed from the college bookstore at Louisiana College, Pineville by the college president “because a love scene described in the book clashes with the school’s Christian values.” (LA)

My House by Nikki Giovanni

1992—Challenged by the Duval County public school libraries because it contains the word “nigger” and was accused of containing excessive vulgarity, racism, and sex. (FL)

A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry

1979—Responding to criticism from an anti-pornography organization, the Ogden School District restricted circulation of Hansberry’s play. (UT)

Nappy Hair by Carolivia Herron

1998—Challenged in Brooklyn because it was considered racially insensitive. (NY)

The Best Short Stories By Negro Writers an Anthology From 1899 to the Presentedited by Langston Hughes

1976—Removed from Island Trees School Union Free District High School library along with nine other titles because they were considered “immoral, anti-American, anti-Christian, or just plain filthy.” (NY)

Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston

1997—Challenged for sexual explicitness, but retained on the Stonewall Jackson High School’s academically advanced reading list in Brentsville. A parent objected to the novel’s language and sexual explicitness.

Call Me Charley by Jesse Jackson

1979—Parents of a black fourth-grade student filed suit against Grand Blanc school officials after a teacher read this title to their son’s class. The work includes a black youth “Sambo,” “nigger,” and “coon.”

The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcom X with Alex Haley

1993—Challenged in the Duval County Public School district because the slain Black Muslim leader advocated anti-white racism and violence. (FL)

Mirandy and Brother Wind by Patricia McKissack

1991—Challenged at the Glen Springs Elementary School in Gainesville, Florida, because of the book’s use of black dialect. (FL)

Daddy Was a Number Runner by Louise Meriweather

1977—Removed from all Oakland junior high school libraries and its use restricted in senior high schools, following a complaint about the book’s explicit depiction of ghetto life. (CA)

Beloved by Toni Morrison

1995 – 2007—Challenged seven times in six states since its publication. (FL, TX, ME, IL, ID, & KY)

2007—Challenged in the Coeur d’Alene School District. Some parents say the book along with five others should require parental permission for students to read them. (ID)

2013—Parent wants the book removed because she believes it depicts scenes of bestiality, gang rape and an infant’s gruesome murder, content she believes could be too intense for teenage readers.

The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison

1994 – 2007—Challenged eleven times in nine states since publication. (AK, PA, FL, MA, MD, NH, CA, CO, MI)

2005—Banned from the Littleton curriculum and library shelves after complaints about its explicit sex, including the rape of an eleven-year-old girl by her father. (CO)

2013– The board of education president in Ohio is criticizing the inclusion of the book on the Common Core Standard’s recommended reading list for 11th-graders, labeling the controversial work “pornographic,” and wishes to ban it from the classroom.

Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison

1993 – 2009—Challenged in five states due to its sexually explicitly language. (OH, GA, FL, MD, MI)

1998—Removed from the St. Mary’s County Schools’ approved text list by the school superintendent overruling a faculty committee recommendation. Complaints referred to the novel as “filth,” “trash,” and “repulsive.” (MD)

Sula by Toni Morrison

2000—Challenged on the Poolesville High School reading list because of the book’s sexual content and language. On October 5, 2000, Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Paul McGuckian dismissed the bid to band the work from the curriculum. The school, however, decided to remove the book from the summer reading list. (MD)

Learning Tree by Gordon Parks

1976 – 2006—Challenged seven times in seven states since publication. (WY, MD, RI, WA, FL, MN, AL)

2006—Challenged on the summer reading list at LeFlore High School in Mobile becdause the author frequently used inappropriate words, such as “nigga,” “bitch,” “bastard,” and “ass.” (AL)

The Black Poets edited by Randall Dudley

1982—Banned for use in English classrooms at the Tinley Park High School because the book “extols murder, rape, theft, incest, sodomy, and other acts.” (IL)

Tar Beach by Faith Ringgold

1994—Challenged in the Spokane elementary school libraries because it stereotypes African Americans as eating fried chicken and watermelon and drinking beer at family picnics. The book is based on the memories of its author’s family rooftop picnics in 1930’s Harlem. The book won the 1992 Coretta Scott King Illustrator Award for its portrayal of minorities. (WA)

Push by Sapphire

2005—Challenged, but retained at Fayetteville High School despite a parent’s complaint that it was sexually explicit. The complainant also submitted a list of more than fifty books, citing the books as too sexually explicit and promoting homosexuality. (AL)

The Friendship by Mildred Taylor

1997—Challenged, but retained in the Prince George’s County school system after a parent claimed that book has “no redeeming value.” (MD)

The Land by Mildred Taylor

2008—Removed from the Turner Elementary School media center shelves in New Tampa as age inappropriate. A parent challenged the book because the novel contains a racial epithet. The book was a 2002 Coretta Scott King Author Award recipient. (FL)

Mississippi Bridge by Mildred Taylor

2001—Challenged by retained at the Donahoe Elementary School library in Sandston despite objections of its “negative content and [that] it’s riddled with prejudice.” The novel by the Newberry Medal-winning author tells the story of a young black man who tries to save white passengers in a bus accident, despite being ordered earlier to give up his seat to “white folks.” (VA)

Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry by Mildred Taylor

1993 – 2004—Challenged four times in four states. (LA, CA, AL, FL).

Bloods: Black Veterans of the Vietnam War: An Oral History by Terry Wallace

1987—Banned from the West Hernando Middle School library in Spring Hill because of “harsh language and presents a moral danger to students.” The librarian filled a grievance and the book was returned to the shelves following a ruling by the American Arbitration Association. Forty minutes after the book was returned, the book was removed again, pending a review by an advisory committee. (FL)

Down These Mean Streets by Thomas Piri

1976—Removed from the Island Trees Union Free School District High School library along with nine other titles because they were considered “immoral, anti-American, anti-Christian, or just plain filthy.” Returned to the library after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 25, 1982 in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 et. al. v. Pico et. al., 457 U.S. 853 (1982). (NY)

The Color Purple by Alice Walker

1984 – 2008—Challenged eighteen times since publication. (CA, VA, MI, TN, WY, NC, PA, CT, FL, OR, TX, WV, OH)

1985—Rejected for purchase by Hayward school trustees because of “rough language” and “explicit sex scenes”. (CA)

The Temple of My Familiar by Alice Walker

1997—Removed from the Jackson County school libraries along with sixteen other titles. (WV)

Jubilee by Margaret Walker

1977—Challenged in the Greenville County school libraries by the Titan of the Fourth Province of the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan because the novel produces “racial strife and hatred.” (SC)

The Destruction of Black Civilization and The Origin of African Civilization by Chancellor Williams

1993—Challenged at the Prince George County high school libraries because the two volumes promote “racism against white people.” In a complaint filed with the state, the works were called “racist pornography” written “to provoke emotions and actions of racial prejudice, bias, hatred, and hostility towards citizens and students in Maryland.” (MD)

Black Boy by Richard Wright

1972 – 2007—Challenged nine times in seven states since publication. (MI, LA, TN, NY, NE, TX, FL)

1987—Challenged in the Lincoln school libraries because of the novel’s “corruptive, obscene nature.” (NE)

Native Son by Richard Wright

1981—Challenged in North Adam’s due to the book’s “violence, sex, and profanity.” (MA)

1988—Challenged in the Hamilton High School curriculum in Fort Wayne because of the novel’s graphic language and sexual content. (IN)

[hedgewitchgarden]

Not only is the term "Judeo-Christian" inaccurate, it's also antisemitic and Islamophobic.

The idea of Judeo-Christianity, and “Judeo-Christian values,” is a relatively new one, borne out of World War II and the Cold War. It is a term that has been adapted by many Christians and American political leaders in an attempt to talk about the “shared values” between the Jewish and Christian religions — but in reality, it erases Jewishness and excludes people of other faith backgrounds, particularly Muslims.

Why are we talking about it now?

On November 29, Dr. David Samadi, a contributor to the conservative Newsmax network, tweeted, “Our churches must reopen. We need to pray at this time of the year. It is the holiest time in the Judeo-Christian calendar. If we can have Walmart, Cotsco, liquor stores, strip clubs and supermarkets we can have churches.”

Quickly, many pointed out that the “Judeo-Christian calendar” is absolutely not a thing. Hanukkah, which is what we can assume he was referring to, is not the holiest time of the year for Jews — that’s reserved for a period called the “High Holidays” (also called the “High Holy Days,” the 10 days spanning Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur). Also, Jews notably use a lunar calendar rather than the Gregorian solar one; it’s kind of our whole deal.

Soon, many began to point out not only is the term “Judeo-Christian” inaccurate, but has antisemitic roots, as well. Let’s get into it, shall we?

Where did the term Judeo-Christian come from?

Before the 20th century, there was no conception of Judeo-Christianity, especially in the United States. In the 1930s, it became a political term. We’ll get to that in a second, but first it’s important to note that the term Judæo Christian actually first referred to Jewish converts to Christianity.

It was first used in a letter from Reverend Alexander McCaul, a guy who is known for being a missionary to the Jews. (Aiming to specifically convert Jews: antisemitic!) Here’s what he writes:

“From all I can see there is but one way to bring about the object of the Society, that is by erecting a Judæo Christian community, a city of refuge, where all who wish to be baptized could be supplied with the means of earning their bread.”

Baptizing Jews, oof.

But that is not how the term is really understood today, so let’s move on…

How did Judeo-Christian emerge as a political term in the United States?

It all started in the 1930s with the rise of Hitler in Germany. As historian James Loeffler notes in The Atlantic, “A European émigré, the German liberal theologian Paul Tillich, was among the first to use the phrase, warning in 1933 that the ‘Protestant church in Germany has on the whole fallen under the spell of Hitlerism … [the] Jewish-Christian tradition [must fight] totalitarianism.'”

After the United States entered World War II in 1941, the phrase “Judeo-Christian” really took off. And Judeo-Christianity, the idea that Jewish and Christian traditions hold sacred similar values and traditions, came to define America itself and its global responsibility. Historian Jonathan Sarna writes in American Judaism: A History that interfaith groups popularized the term to define America in “more inclusive religious terms” so as to combat antisemitism and anti-Catholicism. The term was meant to include America’s “three faiths”: Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism, and became a way to signal a fight against fascism.

But when the phrase really took off was after World War II, in the context of the Cold War. The Cold War, for those who are unfamiliar, was the period of tension/rivalry/sometimes actual war between the U.S. and its allies and the Soviet Union from around 1947 to 1991. The U.S. viewed it as a fight between democracy and communism.

Alright, tell me about “Judeo-Christianity” and the Cold War.

In the context of the Cold War, American leaders used the concept of a shared religious heritage to define America’s role in the world.

For President Harry Truman and other American leaders, the Cold War became a fight between freedom of faith and democracy versus “Godless” communism. Truman, then, recognized that appealing to vague religious values would unite America against its Cold War enemies, because, as he said in his 1948 State of the Union Address, “We are a people of faith.” (Notably, when Truman talked about “faith”, it didn’t exactly include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Native Americans, or the many other religious/faith groups that made up — and still make up! — the United States.)

Under the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the idea of “Judeo-Christianity” became fully enmeshed in American political discourse. Judeo-Christian values, Eisenhower asserted, guided America in its mission to spread liberty, democracy, peace, and tolerance. In Eisenhower’s own words, from 1952: “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal.”

On the flip side, in a 1954 letter, Eisenhower actually cautioned his brother against the term “Judaic-Christian” heritage: “You speak of the ‘Judaic-Christian heritage.’ I would suggest that you use a term on the order of ‘religious heritage’—this is for the reason that we should find some way of including the vast numbers of people who hold to the Islamic and Buddhist religions when we compare the religious world against the Communist world.”

Yet, he did not do so publicly. American leaders — Truman, Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy — invoked the idea of Judeo-Christianity during the early Cold War to unify Americans behind the mission of defending freedom and democracy worldwide.

And, fun fact, this directly ties into the history of America’s relationship with Israel, which you can read all about here.

How did the term evolve?

Well, it quickly began to be used by all sides of the political spectrum.

In Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in 1963:

One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Judeo-Christianity became a shorthand to signal morality, godliness, anti-communism, democracy, and more.

Soon, Judeo-Christianity became a way of Christianity to absorb Judaism in a way, erasing the very real differences that keep the two religions separate.

As Warren Zev Harvey notes in “The Judeo-Christian Tradition’s Five Others,” “The liberal ecumenical campaign on behalf of the term ‘Judeo-Christian tradition’ was successful in the United States beyond all expectations. Indeed, for many Jews, it was too successful. Far too successful! The differences between Judaism and Christianity were being forgotten. Judaism was beginning to be seen as a Christian sect that had one or two idiosyncrasies — like preferring the menorah to the Christmas tree, or the matzah to the Easter egg.”

Say it with us: Not Great. Soon, the very progressives who championed the use of the term a decade earlier as a means for Jewish inclusion in mainstream American culture began to campaign against it.

Notably, Arthur Cohen’s 1969 essay, “The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition,” became a key document in refuting the idea of “Judeo-Christianity.” (You can read his full essay here, in Commentary Magazine.) Cohen writes, simply: “The Judeo-Christian tradition is a construct… What is omitted is the sinew and bone of actuality, for where Jews and Christians divide, divide irreparably, is that for Jews the Messiah is yet to come and for Christians he has already come. That is irreparable.”

But the term had already gained ground.

How is “Judeo-Christian” used in modern times?

After the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, “Judeo-Christian” became an Islamophobic dogwhistle.

Let’s run through some examples, shall we?

In 2002, the prominent evangelist Franklin Graham said, “The god of Islam is not the same god of the Christian or the Judeo-Christian faith. It is a different god, and I believe a very evil and a very wicked religion.”

This isn’t true: As one of the Abrahamic religions (which includes Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed the same God that revealed himself to Abraham in the Hebrew Bible.

In 2006, Republican representative Virgil Goode wrote an op-ed in USA Today titled “Save Judeo-Christian values,” decrying Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison’s decision “to use the Quran in connection with his congressional swearing-in.” He writes, “I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world.”

Your Islamophobia is showing, Virgil.

The term is not exclusive to the U.S., nor solely used in an anti-Muslim backlash to 9/11; right-wing British politician Nigel Farage, for example, said in 2015 following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, “We’re going to have to be a lot braver and a lot more courageous in standing up for our Judeo-Christian culture.”

What about the Trump administration and “Judeo-Christianity”?

“We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” President Trump said in October 2017. “We’re saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.” I don’t have to point out the irony here that Christmas is not a Jewish holiday, do I?

Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, “has for some time been an evangelist for ‘the Judeo-Christian West,'” an article in the National Catholic Reporter notes. Bannon, remember, co-founded the far-right news platform Breitbart. As Bannon told the Economist in 2017, “I want the world to look back in 100 years and say, their mercantilist, Confucian system lost. The Judeo-Christian liberal West won.”

As Beth Daley wrote in the Conversation at the time of Trump’s 2017 speech, Trump’s “‘Judeo-Christian values’ are about protecting Christmas, and about protecting Christians – at the exclusion of others… It seems, then, that the idea of Judeo-Christian values excludes both Jews and Muslims. The phrase tacitly excludes Jews by subsuming Judaism into Christianity, and it explicitly excludes Muslims in its use in anti-immigration rhetoric.”

Well said.

What about some tweets on the topic?

Well, since you asked…

just a reminder, too, that "Judeo-Christian" isn't a thing and was invented by Christians in cold war time in order to assert Christian hegemony. — Dianna E. Anderson (@diannaeanderson) November 29, 2020

“Christian” thought leaders only invoke “Judeo” when they are up to some shady shit. — Michael Green  (@andmichaelgreen) November 29, 2020

Tl;dr?

Judeo-Christian values was a political term invented to unify Americans against “godless” communism during the Cold War, and has more recently been weaponized against both Muslims and Jews. It’s not a real thing. Bye!

[apenitentialprayer]

And even when you were dead in transgression and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He brought you to life along with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions; obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, He also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the Cross.

- The Letter of Saint Paul to the Colossians (2:13-14)

The elaborate metaphor here about how God canceled the legal claims against us through Christ's cross depicts not Christ being nailed to the cross by men, but "the bond … with its legal claims" being nailed to the cross by God.

- The New American Bible, Revised Edition's commentary on the above passage of Scripture.

St. Paul saw death as the "wages of sin" (Rom. 6:25). For love of us, Jesus made himself "sin" (2 Cor 5:21), "a curse" (Gal 3:13). The "double," which became the object of divine justice, is "sin," as personalized by St. Paul; it is the whole humanity of the "old man" which was crucified, that the sinful body might be destroyed (Rom 6:6). All of humanity was condemned upon the cross, and Christ set aside the decree of condemnation, nailing it to the cross (Col 2:14).

- Giulio Basetti-Sani, O.F.M. (The Koran in the Light of Christ: A Christian Interpretation of the Sacred Book of Islam, page 173), trans. W. Russell Carroll, O.F.M., and Bede Dauphinee, O.F.M.

You cancelled our condemnation by nailing it to the Cross, —free us from our chains and lead us out of darkness.

- from the Catholic Liturgy of the Hours, Evening Prayer intercessions for the Tuesday of the Third Week of Easter.

[ominouspositivity-or-else]

Open the Scriptures for us, Goldenrod!!!! Whatcha got, girl???

song of songs is sexy and illicit specifically in the ways it defies social norms of both the time and the times after; both christian and jewish ideas of marriage are tied up in the song of songs purposefully!!! like it defies expectations it's erotic poetry and it's about God and israel and within that it explains how he DESIRES you against all odds. It's about eros it's not like... supposed to be anything other than steamy.

THE FIRST FIVE CHAPTERS OF GENESIS(Give or take a little) ARE MYTHOS. AND HEBREW POETRY. ARTISTIC CHOICES WERE MADE. It's true!!!!!! It involves a history, but it is first and foremost poetry and MYTHOS!!!!

Job is also Hebrew poetry and most assuredly a work of fiction. It might be based loosely on a true story, but the book itself is fictional.

Revelation is about??? Like?? Every moment after Christ ascends? It is as much about now as it is about the end times? It's not specifically about an exact moment, it is this moment until the end of time.

There is no biblical basis for a lot of things that people take for granted in some circles, and even not every catholic tradition is biblical. Moreover, the bible actually says in one of St. Paul's letters(don't remember which) that the bible shouldn't be the only source!!!! Oral teaching is also a completely valid source, along with other types of writings.

Martin Luther took books out of the bible specifically because they supported doctrine he didn't like. Lots of other people at the same time did similar things. Many of these books have been added back into the protestant canon.

Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, Mark for a Roman audience, Luke for a Gentile Audience, and John for a Christian one. I believe John was written first chronologically, and Mark last, but I'm not confident in that statement. Luke might be last.

Luke is the only gospel that includes Mary as a major character. This is the gospel with the text of the Hail Mary in it. It also was collected in a similar way to the Acts, with eyewitness accounts and was gathered from collecting people's thoughts.

One of the main points of the book of John is to showcase clearly that Christ is the new temple raised in three days and the new high priest. This is one of the major bases for Catholic Sacramental Theology.

Translations can be more or less accurate. Like, legitimately, I'm so proud of anyone for reading the Bible, no matter what translation, but you're not EVER going to get the same literary depth or value from The Message translation as you do from say the New American Bible(one of my favorites). Always check which translation you're using when it comes to online sources!!! This is so huge and so overlooked. Basic misunderstandings or misphrasings can come from translations that don't offer the same depth. I've seen horrible characterizations of my favorite verses simply because the TRANSLATION wasn't accurately depicting the verse!

The KJV for instance takes quite a few liberties with its translation that actually wind up portraying things a little differently in specific ways(I'm hugely fond of the KJV's linguistical tone). In one place I know it changes the word "Tyrant" out for a less politically charged word, so to speak.

THE NEW COVENANT TAKES THE PLACE OF THE OLD!!! If you are a Christian, you do not need to worry about the Levitical laws!!! The New Covenant of Christ is the fulfillment of the old. Also, in Acts, there's a whole thing where Peter has to figure out whether or not Christians must observe not just the ten commandments but also all the laws of the covenants like circumcision and offerings at the temple. The answer was "Take and Eat" from above, meaning that what was unclean was now made clean, and you didn't have to be Jewish in your practices to be Christian, and the laws of cleanliness and the covenant sacrifices did not need to be made(because Christ is the new once for all sacrifice but anyway)

Saint Paul was against marriage because at the time he presumed Christ would be coming back IMMEDIATELY. Within a lifetime immediately.

The Letter to the Hebrews was NOT written by Saint Paul. We don't really know who the author was. There's speculation.

ADAM WAS NOT SEDUCED BY EVE INTO EATING THE APPLE. sTARS. THIS IS SUCH A POPULAR POINT OF VIEW ON THIS HELLSITE. That's a point of view popularized by JOHN MILTON in PARADISE LOST published in 1667. Basically, if you see anything overly emo and secular about the Fall, it's probably more based on Paradise Lost than on the actual biblical story.

There's more I've got but this is all stuff that ticks me off when people ignore it. Like, just. Historical and cultural context, translation, and the literal point of the text all need to work together in your understanding. People so often ignore one of them. It bothers me.

[yvesdot]

In his book on creative writing programs during the Cold War, Workshops of Empire, Eric Bennett traces the success of the workshop model to its history at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. He quotes letters from Workshop cofounder Paul Engle to friends and funders, in which Engle sometimes describes his investment in craft as an ideological weapon against the spread of Communism. In one letter, Engle writes that he is convinced, “with a fervor approaching smugness,” that the tradition of Western literature “is precisely what these people [in the East], in their cloudy minds, need most.” As proof that the Workshop’s values were indeed spreading, one of the very first immigrant writers Engle championed was a Korean, Kim Eun Kook, who soon after graduation published a bestselling novel under the name Richard Kim. The novel, The Martyred, is about a Korean reverend falsely accused of betraying his fellow Christians in the name of Communism. Bennett writes that Kim was known in the Workshop as the Korean vet who “took so long to read an English sentence that no one could remember what was wrong with it” and who kept asking the “annoying” question “But what is the meaning of that?” (Bennett’s emphasis). It makes sense that someone learning new cultural rules of craft would want to know the significance of a character-driven plot, and limiting the use of adjectives, and showing vs. telling, etc. So what was so annoying about the question? To admit that craft has meaning is to admit that it is not a default, that it means something to someone.

[aliveandfullofjoy]

Review: The Fabelmans (Spielberg, 2022)

"Art will give you crowns in heaven and laurels on Earth, but also, it will tear your heart out and leave you lonely."

The Fabelmans is a film that's been so heavily marketed as Steven Spielberg's Love Letter To The Movies, but I'm not sure I buy it. There's a lot going on in The Fabelmans, and some of it is definitely an ode to the escapist power of cinema -- one of the first things Michelle Williams says is "Movies are dreams that you never forget" -- but it's almost a cover for the darker, thornier ideas at work here.

Much of The Fabelmans feels so confessional and personal that it's almost hard to watch. Spielberg's parents divorcing was the single most formative event of his childhood, and it's fair to say it directly led to his career as one of the most iconic and influential filmmakers in American history, The way he and co-writer Tony Kushner dramatized the context surrounding the divorce in this film is genuinely devastating. This is largely thanks to the two wildly different performances from Williams and Paul Dano. Williams' Mitzi is a woman who seems to feel every emotion deeply and fully, and her performance is appropriately larger-than-life. Dano's Bert is her opposite, a soft-spoken man of reason and logic who can't seem to figure out where their marriage fell apart. Both Williams and Dano are tremendous actors, and it's fascinating to see them essentially swap modes here (Williams does quietly devastated better than almost anyone, while Dano is scarily good in loud, over-the-top roles). I honestly think I need to see the film again to fully figure out where I land on their performances here (especially Williams, who is doing some extremely interesting work), but their shared sense of history is beautiful to watch.

The most disarming thing about The Fabelmans is the way Spielberg tells on himself. As far as I can tell, he's never bared his soul this directly onscreen before. There's a single, wordless moment in the inevitable scene where the Fabelman parents are telling their children they're getting a divorce that basically acts as the film's thesis. With his sisters sobbing around him, Sammy (Gabriel LaBelle) has fully dissociated. We see the scene from his vantage point, looking down on the living room from the stairs, and as we slowly zoom into a mirror on the mantle, we see Sammy's reflection rush past holding a camera, imagining one of the most painful moments of his life as a scene in a film. The moment comes and goes so fast, but it's haunted me for a month, and it drives home the quote at the top of this review perfectly. That quote, spoken by Uncle Boris (a scenery-chewing Judd Hirsch), and that mirror shot are the whole point of the film. This isn't a film about the magic of storytelling -- or rather, it isn't just about that -- it's a film about loneliness and obsession in the artistic process. The Fabelmans isn't Spielberg's Belfast; it's his Sunday in the Park with George.

Some stray thoughts to wrap this up: LaBelle is freakishly good in this movie; the war movie scenes are so good; the Christian girlfriend stuff is so funny; the climactic scene where Sammy "discovers" his mother's affair while editing home videos is absolutely stunning; the scene with the bully in the hallway is magical; in fact, the entire last half hour is some god-tier stuff, especially the ending (David Lynch!) and the screamingly perfect final shot.

It's funny: I liked this movie just fine as I was leaving the theater, but now, writing about it a month later, I find myself completely overwhelmed with emotion. Turns out I liked it a lot more than I thought. That's the work of a great filmmaker, I guess.

[lyledebeast]

“But that’s between you and God:” The Patriot’s Christianity

As I was writing this post about vengeance in The Patriot and Turn, I kept thinking about the irony of Abe and Hewlett, who have little to say about  Christianity, having a much more Christian take on the concept of vengeance than Benjamin Martin, who evokes his Christian beliefs often.  I decided the issue was much too thorny to get into on that post, so here, I’m going to attempt to delve into the numerous contradictions that inform the movie’s representation of Martin as a Christian man.  To start, let’s look at some of Martin’s words to different characters, in chronological order.

To Gabriel: “Not a day goes by where I don’t ask God’s forgiveness for what I did [at Fort Wilderness].”

To Tavington: “Before this war is over I am going to kill you.”

To Gabriel: “Oh, [Thomas’s death] wasn’t your fault, son.  It was mine.”

To Burwell, after Gabriel’s death: “I have long feared that my sins would return to visit me, and the cost is more than I can bear.”

To Tavington: “You’re right.  My sons were better men.” *bayonets Tavington through the throat*

Does anyone else feel dizzy? Let’s sit down and try to unpack this.

 If we take all of Martin’s words at face value, he is both contrite over his past acts of vengeance and eager for more, both a victim of divine retribution and an agent of retribution that is quite personal.  First, it is worth pointing out that having contradictions in his beliefs is something Martin has in common with many Christians, historically and in the present.  There is no other way to explain the prevalence of White supremacy and prosperity gospel as many American churches conveniently ignore all those verses in the Gospels about loving one’s neighbor and caring for the oppressed.  His use of Christianity is also realistic for the time in which he is living.

While many verses in the Gospels and St. Paul’s letters stress the importance of confessing and asking forgiveness for sins, that Martin admits to continually asking forgiveness for the same sins, committed many years ago, suggests something other than the conviction of the Holy Spirit.  He is having trouble accepting divine forgiveness, likely because he continues to suffer: “I can still see their faces, hear their screams.”  Martin is experiencing symptoms of PTSD long before modern psychoanalysts conceived of the term.  The terminology available to him centers on forgiveness and sin, so that is what he uses. But using Christian language does not, obviously, require a commitment to Christian principles. For Martin, Christianity is less a set of moral guidelines on which to base his choices than a means of conceptualizing and dealing with the trauma that has resulted from them.

The same may be said of his words to Gabriel and Burwell.  Divine retribution is his way of understanding why he has endured such painful losses, but he is also speaking out of grief, not conviction.  Seeing himself as a victim of divine retribution does not mean he sees Tavington as an instrument of God’s will.  Not that he sees himself as such when he dispatches Tavington either, God simply does not enter into this equation.  For all his harsh words about himself in the depths of his grief, he ultimately puts the full weight of blame on Tavington.  In a way, Martin’s citing divine retribution is as much about avoiding blame himself as embracing it. Attributing his sons’ deaths to punishment for something he did many years ago shifts attention away from choices he’s made much more recently that contribute more directly these outcomes.

So far, I have characterized Martin’s approach to Christianity as one that keeps the language but casts aside the principles, that is rooted in context, not conviction.  That is not, however, the only use the movie makes of Christianity. One of the many parallels the movie draws between its hero and its villain is that while Martin asks God’s forgiveness for his war crimes, Tavington mocks his victims before burning them in their church by saying “Indeed you may [be forgiven], but that’s between you and God.” Tavington riding his horse into the church at the start of this scene also parallels the one in which the priest sternly reminds a much more respectful Gabriel Martin that “this is a house of God” before allowing him to proceed with his militia recruitment speech.  These contrasts move beyond a purely historical interest in Christanity to cast certain of its practices as markers of goodness and contempt for those practices as a marker of evil.  That Tavington is murdering women, children, and the elderly should be enough to accomplish that by itself, but the narrative here adds blasphemy to his other outrages.

Christian principles also inform the movie’s condemnation of James Wilkins.  In spite of debating him personally over the issue of independence at the start of the movie, Mr. Howard seems shocked to find Wilkins among the Green Dragoons.  This is not the first time someone is incredulous about him turning against his neighbors.  Interestingly, there is nothing in the movie to indicate that Wilkins is a Christian, and there is certainly a great deal to indicate that Tavington is not.  Yet when Gabriel uses the church to advocate for political violence, as much a violation of Christian principles as Tavington riding his horse in at least, not only do the congregation’s members not object, many of the men join his cause, including the priest! The same member who is shocked by Wilkins lack of love for his neighbors has no qualms about his daughter marrying the son of a man who trafficked in the remains of their Cherokee “neighbors” during the French and Indian War.  Considering that he himself is a veteran of that war. this is unsurprising.  He has no trouble understanding how people from the same place can be enemies when some of those people are not White.

That Benjamin Martin does not adhere to Christian principles makes one point about the historical usage of Christianity, but that no one in the movie does makes another.  The single group that is put on blast through the entirely of the New Testament is people who claim to be followers of Christ but ignore the principles he taught.  There is very little about the conduct of people outside that specific group; they are not the intended audience.  But, the Christians in The Patriot have very little interest in the New Testament and much interest in political violence, for the sake of vengeance as much as independence.  The church building, the numerous crosses on which Martin gazes pensively throughout the movie, are a  chain of signifiers, each with more importance to the movie than what they signify. 

.

[burntcopper]

Theatre list 2022

Best of Enemies (Young Vic)* Nutcracker (St Petersburg ballet) Street Scene (Kurt Weill) (Teatro Real Madrid) Private Lives (Hall for Cornwall) Verdi's Rigoletto: On the Lake (Bregenz Festival) Carmen (Sydney Harbour) The Dante Project (Royal Ballet) Madame Butterfly (Sydney Harbour) Groan-ups (Hall for Cornwall) Kiss Me Kate (BBC Proms) Aida (Sydney Harbour) Ludovico Einaudi : The Elements Around the World in 80 Days (Rain or Shine) The Collaboration (Young Vic)* Cyrano de Bergerac (Harold Pinter)* Bill Bailey Larks in Transit (ROH) Everybody's Talking About Jamie (Hall for Cornwall) The Play What I Wrote (Birmingham Rep) Rumplestiltskin (Ballet Lorent) Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre henry iv part 1 (rsc 2014) Macbeth (Globe) Bonnie and Clyde (Arts Theatre)* Much Ado About Nothing (globe)* The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime (Hall for Cornwall) (2nd half) Wine Night (Lona Theatre, AMATA) HMS Pinafore (ENO) Oklahoma (Young Vic) Magic Goes Wrong (Hall for Cornwall)* Kate Rusby (Hall for Cornwall) La Bayadere (Royal Balllet) Ladies of Letters (Hall for Cornwall)* Rough Girls (Lyric Belfast) The Recruiting Officer (Rain or Shine) Much Ado (National Theatre)* Much Ado (Blewbury) The Tempest (Globe)* Prisoner C33 Jack Absolute Flies Again (National Theatre)* I, Joan (Globe) The Tempest (Globe) Much Ado About Nothing (globe)* Six (Hall for Cornwall)* Richard iii (rsc) Les Ballets Trockadero de Monte Carlo (Hall for Cornwall)* The Seagull (Harold Pinter) Wuthering Heights (Bristol Old Vic) Nutcracker! (Bourne) White Christmas (Hall for Cornwall) Sleeping Beauty (Bourne) (Theatre Royal Plymouth) Gods of the Game (Grange Park Opera) Treasure Island (Hall for Cornwall) Henry V (Globe)* Hex (National Theatre) A Christmas Carol:  A Ghost Story (Nottingham Playhouse) As You Like It (sohoplace)*

Best 12

Best of Enemies (Young Vic)* The Collaboration (Young Vic)* Cyrano de Bergerac (Harold Pinter)* Bonnie and Clyde (Arts Theatre)* Much Ado About Nothing (globe)* Much Ado (National Theatre)* The Tempest (Globe)* Jack Absolute Flies Again (National Theatre)* Six (Hall for Cornwall)* Les Ballets Trockadero de Monte Carlo (Hall for Cornwall)* Henry V (Globe)* As You Like It (sohoplace)*

Best of Enemies : Hi we're going to examine ego and the birth of modern media and political commentary and identity and ... yes that is Andy Warhol, everyone else at the party is trying to ignore him too.

The Collaboration: Art! Reawakening artistic impulses!  Connection with the world! Tunes!  Paul Bettany!

Cyrano de Bergerac: Words, desire, the power of words, rap battles, being a dick because you can, falling for people, depth of emotion, James McAvoy's thighs (my view for the first ten minutes) and Christian and Cyrano falling for each other as well and MY HEART.

Bonnie and Clyde: We're gonna heist and we're going for fame and tomorrow doesn't exist.

Much Ado (Globe): It's Italy post-war.  We're all horny as hell, everyone is beautiful, the coppers are trying to kill us laughing via shenanigans, will you please get out of my shrubbery, and ladsladslads is it gay to wrestle your mates this much?

Much Ado (NT) : Setting:  Grand Budapest Hotel. Challenge:  ice cream toppings and pec popping. Glam as fuck. *mwah*. (not as good as Globe, Beatrice and Benedick were more weirdos who band together than banter, but achingly glam)

The Tempest (Globe): The Island is the spanish riviera, everyone is Brits who think they're better than the natives, Prospero's in a yellow budgie smuggler and it turns out this is actually a comedy, Lionesses win so they have to re-jig the Three Lions lyrics mid-run in glorious fashion and Prospero is absolutely a fuckhead slavemaster.

Jack Absolute Flies Again: WW2 farce! malapropisms delivered so perfectly you nearly kill the audience!  ukeleles!

Six: The ushers will dance and you can't stop us.  And yes everyone's favourites are the Annes.  Sorry not Sorry.

Les Ballets Trockadero de Monte Carlo:  The boys are back, they're en pointe and they're glorious.

Henry V (Globe): Henry goes full psychopath to the point that Jude Law's been left in the dust in scary Hals and I didn't think I'd ever say *that*.  When the usual comedic bits leave a hole in your soul.

As You Like It (sohoplace): Sorry, hearing actors.  Rose Ayling-Ellis has put a cherry on top of why Celia should be played by a deaf actor. (see Globe and Nadia Nadarajah) Entire cast flirting with the pianist should be encouraged.  Also: Alfie Enoch needs to go full ham more often. New best stage direction as provided by the subtitles; *pianist improvises frantically*

'Fuck off, keep fucking off, and fuck off again, you’re boring and tiresome and self-involved and why the fuck should I care about you?’ Award:

Aside from all the classical opera (I keep trying.  I fail.  This is just not a genre I can handle.  Decent tunes on occasion, lots of plodding pageantry and singing at people rather than advancing the plot. Though Gods of the Game was pretty decent by virtue of the fact that it kept employing opera tunes footie fans use but for adverts and the chorus of fans. Toreador as the jingle tune for a burger advert the lead is doing?  NICE.) Wuthering Heights.  Quite brilliant staging, and I thought it would be the Emma Rice-ness turning me off in this but no, it was the Bronte.  I literally just want to yell 'fucking leave, don't come back' at everyone.  The Emma Rice twiddly dance and music numbers were actually pretty good.

[papirouge]

😬 So, a friend of a friend showed me a clip yesterday of her old pastor going viral on tiktok for saying how this pastor, if he was on a jury for a rape case, and the victim wore short shorts, he would excuse the rapist because “men are going to be men!” And trying to tie that into purity culture. They are American too. She told me that her friend left that church because the congregation were incredibly abusive and aren’t actually Christians which makes sense , why is that ugly pastor even thinking of excusing rape as a sermon??

Anyway, it’s weird to see it go viral but I wanted to also share a dream I had that I saw a glimpse into hell where I was told that many pastors, priests and faith leaders were cursing god and Jesus. I was told in my dream that many churches are empty and the people are empty too. It was very brief but I had that dream like over ten years ago and I feel like it’s relevant still today as more of these false prophets go viral online being exposed.

Church pastoring has become a nest of power hungry narcissists and perverts. Who's even shocked?

That's the end logic of "church (little c) culture" and professional church leadership. Church leaders shouldn't be paid/have a salary. God gave us for free, we should give it back for free. Tithing should be used to help people in the congregation in need (poor families), basic necessities (bills - if the service is in rented place), or pay for Bibles to give them away for free, but that's it.

If church leader didn't get paid, a lot of them would be less cocky and offensive. Stop personality cult too. Have you noticed some posters to advertise church event didn't even have Jesus name on them, but the pastor(s) name in big and bold letter instead?

I'm very suspicious of pastors who are well dressed. They should looks humble. John the Baptist was a homeless marginal who ate crickets. He probably smelled bad and was physically off-putting, but he ended up being one of the biggest witness for Jesus - next to Paul. Those modern day preachers would NEVAH. Not one of them would have the selflessness and unbotheredness of John the Baptist.

There's a reason I don't go to church anymore. I just cannot with this spirit of delusion and falsehood.

I know what I'm about to say may ruffle some feathers, but I can't help but roll my eyes when I see those Christian women speaking about God love and self acceptance while having a full face lf make up slapped on, and a wig on. Bestie, you very obviously don't accept how God made you, how can you pretend accepting God in your life?

So I'm not surprised you had those dream about preachers denying Christ. It's written. I always said only a VERY small remnant of self professed Christians were actually Christians. Most "Christian" in the USA are just Conservatives who like what the Bible says. But the Bible is far from conservatism. It's actually very reformist in the sense it compels us to renew our entire being to conform to God character - which is very reformist in and of itself.