Presentation at CESNUR Conference

My abstract submission to the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR) was accepted for their conference in Salt Lake City to be held 10-14 June. The program may be viewed here, and registration can be processed here. Following is the abstract I submitted:

"From 'Cults' to Cultures: Bridges as a Case Study in a New Evangelical Paradigm on New Religions”

Several cultural segments have helped contribute to the marginalization of the new religions in the United States over the past several decades. In Protestantism the driving force toward marginalization has been the evangelical counter-cult movement. The counter-cult has existed as a cultural phenomenon alongside the secular anti-cult, but it has followed a decidedly different trajectory. With its interest in doctrine and Christian worldview it has tended toward a boundary maintenance stance connected to polemic denunciation of new religions. This has served not only to delineate the boundaries between evangelicalism and the new religions, but also to marginalize the new religions in common perception within evangelicalism, and at times it has contributed to the strained credibility of the new religions in the public sphere as well. An unintended consequence of the counter-cult approach to new religions was the marginalization of the counter-cult itself, not only in the academy but also in how it was perceived by the new religions themselves, the very groups the counter-cult wishes to engage.

In recent years a new paradigm has developed among evangelicals that is multidisciplinary, academically informed, and concerned with a more responsible understanding of the new religions and engagement with their adherents. This paper and workshop will sketch the prevalent evangelical approach of past decades and will contrast this with the emerging paradigm. A specific example and case study will be considered in a new evangelical approach to Mormonism developed by Salt Lake Theological Seminary and promoted by the Western Institute for Intercultural Studies.

The Christian Study of Religions: Moving Beyond Dismissal and "Gotcha"

I recently engaged the thinking of two scholars with similar ideas as to how Christians ought to approach other religions. I pass along my brief comments on their thinking through this post.

The first scholar is the late Eric J. Sharpe who was professor of religious studies at the University of Sydney, Australia. I was reminded of his work and its importance to developing a theology of interreligious dialogue in an interview I did a while back with Harold Taylor who recommended one of Sharpe's books, Faith Meets Faith: Some Christian Attitudes to Hinduism in the Nineteenth & Twentieth Centuries (SCM Press, 1977). Although I've only managed to get through the introduction so far due to my backlog in my reading list, one comment struck me. In referring to Christian attitudes of dismissal of non-Christian religions Sharpe wrote, "It was all very well for the Christian to have a biblical theology of devilry in high places with which to account for such intransigence, but the missionary (particularly if he or she happened to be a scholar) could not always rest content with such an abrupt dismissal."

Sharpe's comments overlapped with a statement made by Gordon Melton recently during his visit to Salt Lake City where we had an opportunity to have lunch. Melton commented in essence that when you study religions with the goal of only or largely learning where you disagree with them then you come away with a very limited understanding of them.

I find it interesting that two scholars coming at the study of religions from different academic perspectives and different locations internationally nevertheless find common ground in recognizing the need for a broader research agenda and understanding by Christians as they learn about other religions.

Life, the Universe & Everything Symposium Presentation

I will be presenting a paper at the Life, the Universe, and Everything (LTUE): The Marion K. "Doc" Smith Symposium on Science Fiction and Fantasy. The symposium will be held February 19-21 on the campus of Brigham Young University. My paper is titled "Cinefantastique to Theofantastique: Fantastic Cinema and Interreligious Dialogue." In it I will discuss the literature and cinema of the fantastic that provides a sense of wonder and entertainment, but also frequently serves as a place for the exploration of the transcendent. Mormons recognize this in the many science fiction writers who are Latter-day Saints, while evangelicals tend to look to C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien as patron saints of fantastic literature. I will suggest that given science fiction's ability to provide a sense of distance between controversial subject matter and the audience, and John Lyden's notion that film often performs a religious function in Western culture, that science fiction and fantasy cinema should be considered as a venue and medium for interreligious dialogue. The schedule for LTUE can be viewed here.

New Barna Survey on American Feelings About Wicca

The latest issue of The Barna Update touches on the subject of their national survey said to reveal the feelings of Americans on Wicca. Some of the results of the survey include the following excerpts:

A slight majority of Americans (55%) say they have not heard the term "Wicca."

Among the 45% who have heard of, the segments most familiar with Wicca include people younger than 60 (50% are familiar with the name, compared to 35% of older adults); Christian evangelicals (65%); Skeptics (61% of atheists and agnostics); Asian Americans (52%); upscale adults (62%); and those who describe themselves as socio-politically liberal in most cases (55%).

Among those who have heard of Wicca, nearly two-thirds (62%) described it as an organized form of witchcraft. Smaller proportions defined Wicca as a form of Satanism (7%) or as a religious cult (7%). About one-fifth (18%) said that although they were familiar with the name, they knew little or nothing about Wicca.

When asked to express their view of Wicca, 6% held a favorable view (2% very favorable and 4% somewhat favorable), and 52% held unfavorable views (7% somewhat unfavorable and 45% very unfavorable).

Perhaps the most intriguing response was from the remaining 43% who said they did not know what they thought of Wicca or had no particular opinion about it.

Those who possessed a "very unfavorable" view were most likely to be found among residents of the South and Midwest (52% of whom had a very unfavorable opinion); born again Christians (67%); and socio-political conservatives (61%).

Song: "The Christians and the Pagans"

A dear Pagan friend of mine, Luna Aileen, from the Eagles Kindred here in northern Utah sent me an email this morning pointing me toward this video with the song "The Christians and the Pagans." I appreciate the spirit of the song as it describes members of these communities sitting together for understanding. For what it is worth I point my Pagan and Christian friends and dialogue partners to it for reflection.

John Drane: After McDonaldization

John Drane is a spiritual consultant to both traditional and emerging churches in the U.K. and internationally, and a professor of practical thelology in the U.S. at Fuller Seminary in California. He is the author of a number of books, and his most recent is After McDonaldization: Mission, Ministry and Christian Discipleship in An Age of Uncertainty (Baker Academic, 2008). In this volume Drane presents the case for a reinvigorated style of ministry and asks what it means to be Christian in a post-Christendom context. Over the weekend he made time for an interview on the thesis of his book.

Morehead's Musings: Professor Drane, I have long benefited from your writing and reflections on the church in the West or the Global North as you prefer to refer to it in your latest book, To put down a proper foundation and context, can you briefly summarize the cultural challenges posed by our post-Christian environment and why these issues need to be squarely faced by the church?

John Drane: I think former General Eric Shinseki, now an Obama nominee, put it succinctly when he commented that "If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less". The biggest challenge may not actually be coming from the cultural environment, but from within the church, where for a generation now we have consistently failed to understand the seismic changes that are sweeping through the whole world system today – but which in reality began almost 50 years ago. Many Christians who lived through the cultural revolution of the 1960s (and who are now the leaders of our major denominations) failed to embrace cultural change then, and as a consequence have been like the proverbial deer caught in headlights as the pace of change has accelerated. Underlying that was the remnant of a Christendom mindset that misunderstood the nature of the relationship between cultural forms and the Christian gospel, failing to realize that in order to stay the same the gospel has always had to change if its challenge is to be heard authentically in diverse circumstances. Paradoxically, this was the very generation that pioneered faithful contextualization within missionary contexts in the non-western world, but failed to see that the West itself was a missionary situation. So in short, while cultural change is real, and is here to stay, I think it’s too easy to blame external circumstances for the challenges we now face.

Morehead's Musings: For those not familiar with your book The McDonaldization of the Church upon which your new book builds and suggests ways forward, can you describe the McDonaldization thesis and its application to the church?

John Drane: The McDonaldization thesis is a specialized version of Max Weber’s understanding of the social process, and especially focuses on the extreme rationalization of late 20th century cultures made possible through the development of technology and the consequent multiplication of rules, regulations, and fixed procedures, and the general growth of bureaucratic systems. The word "McDonaldization" stems from sociologist George Ritzer’s observation that the fast food industry embodies what might be regarded as one of the most extreme forms of such rationalization. As anyone who has ever worked in this environment will know, there is only one way to cook and serve a burger – and even those whose only experience is as customers easily recognize that not only is every fast food meal the same as every other one, but the way in which it is served (even the words used by servers) is going to be identical in all the outlets. Ritzer identified four marks of McDonaldization: efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. In reflecting on this, he concluded that the growing emphasis on this sort of rationalization in every aspect of our lives is forcing us to operate in a mechanistic way that marginalizes individuality and creativity and as a consequence is arguably a major cause of the disillusionment and existential agony now felt by many people. When I came across that, it seemed natural to wonder how all this might relate to the church. In particular I asked whether we have allowed our churches and their structures – not to mention the ways we worship – to be taken over by the creeping rationalization of modernist culture, and whether that over-rationalized way of being might actually be damaging the spirituality of those in the church, as well as being missionally counterproductive in relation to individuals for whom the rest of life was already over-McDonaldized, and who were looking for freedom from that rather than more of the same. It wasn’t hard to identify the four marks of McDonaldization in inherited forms of church – and just as easy to see that this was at odds with a biblical understanding of faith. Wherever we look, authentic biblical faith recognizes – indeed celebrates – diversity. The prophets raised creativity to an art form that was at times bizarre, but always engaging. Jesus went out of his way to accommodate the most eclectic mix of people among his followers. And even Paul (often claimed to be the creator of a rationalized form of belief) never insisted that all his churches be identical, knowing that for the gospel to be contextualized in Philippi was going to be different from its contextualization in Corinth, Jerusalem, or Rome. Meaningful contextualization in our globalized world is now less a matter of geography (though that is still important in some places), and more a matter of culture and interest groups.

Morehead's Musings: One of the interesting concepts for me in your book was your suggestion that we are moving into the Conceptual Age. Borrowing from Daniel Pink's concepts from his book, A Whole New Mind (Riverhead Trade, 2006) you identify Western culture as having moved from an Agricultural Age, to an Industrial Age, to the Information Age, and now into the Conceptual Age. How do you define the Conceptual Age and why is this significant for the church to understand?

John Drane: I like the notion of the conceptual age because it seems to me that we are in a place where we need a serious reconceptualization of just about everything we think we know. We face unprecedented challenges to our entire existence and it is clear that the paradigms inherited from the past are in large measure a cause of the mess we’re now in, and for that reason alone are unlikely to be answer to the problem. The global financial crisis is just the latest manifestation of this. We also face the reality of environmental degradation. These things have largely been brought about by our current ways of being, which means that doing more of the same is unlikely to be the resolution of things. We do urgently need to find, as Daniel Pink says, “a whole new mind” – and that for me means taking the spiritual far more seriously than has been the case for a very long time.

Morehead's Musings: Another interesting suggestion you offer is that the church needs to develop a twenty-first century eschatology that positively engages with hedonism. You state that if hedonism "is the way in which many people confront and deal with life today, then in one sense that set of behaviors and rituals actually is their spirituality." This struck me because I have had similar thoughts as it relates to my reflections on a theology of play and ritual in connection with Burning Man Festival. How might the church dialogue with culture theologically in this area in order to develop such an eschatology?

John Drane: I think it also has something to do with the articulation of a biblically inspired anthropology. Writers like Nancey Murphy and Joel Green have identified some of the new questions in light of neuroscience but I would also want to approach this through exploration of what, exactly, does it mean for humans to be “made in God’s image”. It seems to me that we have lost touch with our most basic sense of value and purpose in life, and this has a tendency to induce a questioning of our worth and an inability to see our true place in the wider cosmos, which leaves us only with consumerism and hedonism as ways of filling the vacuum. For me, the Lord’s Prayer articulates the challenge quite simply: we are exhorted to pray “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven”. But a lot of Christians seem to hear that differently, as “let me come to your kingdom, when I die, because that’s where your will is truly done, unlike the earth where I live now”. By paying more attention to a world we don’t live in, and which is not ours to control, and ignoring the world where we can make a difference, we are missing something central to the gospel.

Morehead's Musings: After some discussion of the contemporary "holistic milieu" in Western spiritual experience you challenge the church's "inherited pattern of gathering in congregations [that many assume] will be at the centre of church life." In what ways might Christians be thinking beyond this paradigm for church in ways that seeks to develop new senses of spiritual community, especially in ways that enable us to engage the urban tribes?

John Drane: It’s not that I want to close down the habit of congregational gathering, more that I suspect it is a way of being that is in transition, and eventually may come to be seen as a cultural manifestation of an era and a way of being that is now past. Clearly, church as it is now connects meaningfully with many people, otherwise no-one at all would be in the churches we now have. For me, this is more about the glass being half full or half empty, and my concern is with the half that is empty, by which I mean those many people groups with whom current ways of being church will never connect in meaningful ways. In relation to the new “urban tribes”, then there might well be a different specific answer for different times and places, because not all such tribes are identical, even though they might share many characteristics in common. But speaking more generally, one of the main things that have attracted the urban tribes (and many others as well) to President-elect Obama has been his assurance that we don’t have to do things the way they’ve always been done, and new ways might actually be better for human flourishing. From a Christian angle, for me that means a renewed recognition that life is a whole, there is no sacred/secular divide, and we need to ask new questions that begin with something like, “what does faithful discipleship look like in this time and place?”

Morehead's Musings: I think you would agree that the church can be transformed itself by engagement with new urban tribes. What is the potential for transformation for the church in creativity and imagination as it engages artists, poets, filmmakers, and bohemians?

John Drane: One of the things I really like about this forward-looking vision is that it would also take us back to our scriptural foundations. Who are the movers and shakers in the Bible? Well, the prophets were clearly artists and poets (quite often dramatists and mime artists as well), as indeed was Jesus (one of the most challenging things he ever did was to draw a picture, see John 8:8, though he mostly told stories which is what filmmakers do today). And they were all bohemians, if by that you mean people whose lifestyles are anything but conventional.

Morehead's Musings: Drawing from Daniel Pink again, you note that the changing cultural context of our time calls for people who can "synthesize rather than analyze." Can you touch on this and expand on it as to what you are calling for and how such people, particularly in leadership, might be of great help to the church?

John Drane: You could put this in a different way by saying that what we need today are big picture people, those who see beyond the immediate, and who are two or three steps ahead in understanding the likely future consequences of each small action we might do today. Call them strategic leaders, if you like. Actually, we have too many managers and very few leaders. Remember that nobody is a leader unless somebody is following. People today are moved to follow by someone who has a vision – a big project that transcends our own individual lives, and opens up the possibility of new worlds and new opportunities, and in the process pulling together strands that others never see. That’s not to say that analysis is irrelevant, because visionary leaders often have no idea how to bring their big ideas to fruition. But it’s not the managerial skills that will inspire us to new possibilities.

Morehead's Musings: You share your own personal struggles in the book in coming to your present thoughts on the church and at one point you state that "I only came to that realization because I was prepared to listen to what was going on in a cultural context that in many ways was quite alien to any of my previous experience." Would you describe your experience as a paradigm shift, and how might we develop these listening skills to transform our understanding of the challenges of the day?

John Drane: For me personally, I don’t think I would describe it as a paradigm shift, but it might be when projected onto the bigger screen of church life more generally. One legacy of Christendom is that churches seem to think they have an automatic right to be heard whenever they make pronouncements about things. You see that in the U.S. just as clearly as in the older cultures of Europe. We need to earn the right to be participants in the cultural conversations of our day, and our credibility will only be guaranteed when we start engaging with the questions people are actually asking, rather than the ones we think they should be. You only know what those questions are when you listen. Actually, talking about listening to the culture as if it’s some alien thing out there may not be the best way of putting it, because we are all already a part of the culture in which we are called to be faithful followers of Jesus. But some Christians seem to be in denial about that, and when they’re in the church (though not usually in the rest of their lives) adopt a mindset that puts faith and culture in opposition to each other. Not only is such denial spiritually corrosive in itself, but it also prevents us seeing where God is already at work, and inhibits effective engagement with the many conversations already taking place.

Morehead's Musings: You suggest that the church "begin with the agenda of those who are asking the questions of purpose and identity, rather than with the agenda of the Church." And as a result of this you also suggest that the church shift from being in the service and the experience business to putting energies into the transformation business. Can you touch a little on what you mean by this?

John Drane: I first started thinking about this when I did a survey of how churches present themselves on their websites, and one of the first things I noticed was that if you wanted to know how to follow Jesus then for the most part a church website would not be the place to look. Most of them have the sort of information that I guess needs to be available, but would only interest committed members (things like rotas for who arranges the flowers, who staffs the crèche, and so on). Many churches say very little about their beliefs, but among those that do there is a similar internal preoccupation, using buzz words like "Bible-believing" (who are the Christians who would say they don’t believe it?) or "welcoming and affirming" (what Christian would say they are not?) – or offering creedal statements couched in language that doesn’t really tell people what you are about, but constitutes a social marker to distinguish yourself from some other type of church (usually one you disapprove of). All of that only makes sense to an internal market, where you have people who want a church, and their major question is, which one? In a churched culture (such as the U.S. still is, to a considerable extent), you can still grow a church by offering that sort of religious service to the existing constituency, and you might even gain a few new people by offering a bigger or better experience than some other church in the neighborhood. But the real missional challenge doesn’t focus around questions of that sort. Increasing numbers of people know next to nothing about Christian belief, and are completely baffled by internal arguments about interpretation of scripture or theological angles. They are looking for something that will give meaning and purpose to life. In effect, they will say, “cut the crap: just show me that it works”. That invites us to be into what I called the transformation business. Even more scarily, I speculate in the book about what might happen if we were only paid by results, if our promises of transformative experience actually delivered. One of our biggest challenges is the discrepancy that is all too often found between what we offer and who we are. A previous generation talked about the need to practice what we preach. I might ask why so many churches have so many angry people in them if we are really as transformed as we say we are. Which ultimately comes down to a missional question, for who wants to join a bunch of angry people?

Morehead's Musings: Dr. Drane, thank you again for taking time out of your busy traveling, consulting and teaching schedule to discuss your new book. I highly recommend it as the latest of a series of helpful and thought provoking volumes.

PhD Application to University Durham Accepted

I received word today that may application to the University of Durham in the Theology and Religion Department for a PhD through their research programme was approved. Now comes the hard parts in terms of raising the funds to pay for my tuition, as well as the obvious research and thesis writing.

For those interested in the subject matter my proposal to University Durham is reproduced below.

Mormon Myth and Sacred Narrative: The Missing Academic and Dialogical Dimension
Mormonism continues to be a popular and growing area of study in academia. A survey of the academic literature on the topic demonstrates a variety of research perspectives, including the historical, doctrinal, cross-cultural, and social scientific. Yet even with these varying academic frameworks certain dimensions are missing (Sorensen 2007) and very much needed in order to expand our understanding of this rich religious tradition in all of its multidimensional textures. This is particularly the case with the mythic dimension, or the sacred narratives and stories found within Mormon culture. Myths in this context are defined as a narrative or “story with culturally formative power” (Hexham and Poewe 1997, 81). Hexham and Poewe have suggested that many of the new religions that arose in nineteenth century America did so with an appropriation of certain mythic fragments. In their view, Mormonism arose out of a cultural milieu of an evolutionary mythology wherein its founder Joseph Smith “wove together many diverse myths into an integrated whole” (ibid., 94). Mormonism may be understood as a new religious movement that arose out of a major mythos of nineteenth century America, and in its continued development it has formed various subnarratives making up the mythic whole. With these considerations in mind, sacred narrative represents a neglected aspect of academic studies of Mormonism.

Sacred narrative is also absent in the evangelical-Mormon dialogue process that has been taking place formally since the 1990s. This is not difficult to explain. First, while Christian dialogue with world religions such as Buddhism and Islam have been going on for quite some time, Christian dialogue with the new religions is relatively new, and it has not received either the attention or scholarly focus as dialogue with world religions (Saliba 1993). Thus, it may be that those evangelicals involved in dialogue with Mormonism have not been as reflective on this process as have evangelicals in other interreligious contexts. Second, dialogue with the new religions, as in the case of evangelicalism and Mormonism (Blomberg & Robinson 1997, Millet & Johnson 2007; Millet and McDermott 2007), has taken place against the backdrop of concern over orthodoxy in contrast with heresy (Johnson 1997; Saliba 2003; Hexham, Rost & Morehead 2004) with an eye toward theological boundary maintenance (Cowan 2003). This is not always the case, particularly when Mormon scholars have dialogued with theologians beyond Protestant evangelicalism (Musser & Paulsen 2007), yet it is the case in general in regards to the evangelical-Mormon dialogue process. Given the significance of a unique set of beliefs and worldview in Mormonism, and its claims of uniqueness vis-à-vis the larger Judeo-Christian tradition, doctrinal and theological issues should not be divorced from the dialogue process, but additional room is needed for other perspectives, particularly those that may resonate more centrally with Latter-day Saint perspectives.

This is especially the case if an understanding of Mormonism is to take place from perspectives that attempt to understand Mormonism from the point of view of its adherents. In the process of interreligious dialogue evangelicals and other Protestants have tended to approach the religious other from vantage point of the Christian concern for doctrine. This reflects not only a dialogue starting from Christian presuppositions, but may also reflect lingering aspects of colonialism (Yong 2008). There is a great need for an academic study of a missing dimension of Mormonism wherein the research tries “sympathetically and imaginatively to enter into the lives and experience of those they are studying. By employing informed empathy, they can gain some access into the complex of intensions and experiences of religious adherents” (Sorenson 2007, 135-6). In our post-colonial, post-Christendom, post-9/11, globalized environment the need is perhaps greater than ever before to approach the religious other from perspectives that are empathetic, humble, and in keeping with the vantage point of adherents themselves. A study of Mormonism from the perspective of sacred narrative thus reflects a more sympathetic perspective in keeping with the ideals of religious studies and the socio-cultural needs of our time.

Dimensions of Mormon sacred narrative
Myth and sacred story (Sorenson 1981), and the related concepts of folklore (Edison 1989; Wilson 1998, 1995) are rich sources for understanding Mormonism, including its values and beliefs, as well as the personal and collective sources of meaning and identity for the Mormon people. Sacred narratives may be categorized under broad headings such as the Restoration, Revelation, Pioneers, Missionary Work, and stories of Courage, Healing, and Encouragement (Lyon, Gundry & Parry). They are found in a variety of cultural texts, including Mormon scriptures, General Conference talks, hometeaching messages from the First Presidency, the teaching curriculum of the LDS Church, books written by Church academics, fireside chats, and family circles. Other sources include cultural pageants and celebrations such as the Mormon Miracle Pageant and Pioneer Day, as well as dramatic theatrical productions, and Latter-day Saint culture-specific cinema.

An analysis of these sources reveals several important facets of sacred narrative within Mormon culture. These include the Joseph Smith Story/First Vision, founding Prophet Joseph Smith’s claim of heavenly visitation and a call to restore the Christian church. The power of this narrative lies not only within Smith’s experience, but also for Church members and converts as they place themselves in Smith’s experience thereby framing their personal identity and narrative within the larger narrative of the founding of the Church. Personal identification within the First Vision narrative might also connect the sacred and profane in daily Latter-day Saint thought and living as they read of Smith’s experience and revelations coupled with his continued work at farming and the mundane affairs of nineteenth century America. Smith’s narrative of the First Vision helps Latter-day Saint people realize the potential for their mundane lives to be punctuated by revelation even while this plays out against the ordinary and mundane affairs of life.

A second narrative thread is that of the Westward Trek or the Pioneer Narrative. This narrative is connected to a sense of persecution and martyrdom that links this narrative thread with that of the First Vision. The early Mormons experienced constant persecution, eventually leading to the murder of their leader and their expulsion from their homes which culminated in a trek West and a settling in what would become Salt Lake City and the beginnings of a vast geographical region under the Mormon influence. Here again the contemporary personal identification with this narrative thread is strong. Many Latter-day Saints identify with the pioneer stories as their family story, regardless of whether they have family members who crossed the plains. This narrative may also resonate with others as the Church extends itself globally. Many can imagine themselves as pioneers or trailblazers as the some of the first people to accept the gospel of the restoration in their family and nation.

The third sacred narrative is the Pre-Mortal Life. As the name implies, this story teaches that human beings pre-existed their present earthly lives and dwelt with God prior to taking on human flesh. With this foundational narrative in mind, this life is considered act two of a “three act play” of human existence. Dialogues with Latter-day Saints reveal how powerful and influential this narrative is, so much so that it even impacts child-rearing attitudes as parents considered the pre-mortal relationships with their children where a differing relationship may have existed.

A fourth and sacred narrative is the Missionary Narrative. The Missionary Narrative forms a kind of microcosm of the Mormon Plan of Salvation. Mormon missionaries leave home, are sent to a new area, spend a limited amount of time meeting people and sharing the gospel, making right ethical choices, touching the lives of other sand then returning home to loving parents. This missionary work parallels the Plan of Salvation as Mormons believe they leave the Pre-Mortal Life, enter a period of probation and mortality, only to return once again to loving Heavenly Parents. Viewed in light of the Missionary Narrative, Latter-day Saints can see their mortal life as a sacred mission in fulfillment of a probationary time of testing and in anticipation of restored relationships and progression that transcend mortality.

Bibliography/Works Cited

Bitton, Davis. 1994. The Ritualization of Mormon History and Other Essays. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Blomberg, Craig and Stephen E. Robinson. 1997. How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Bradford, M. Gerald. 2007. “The Study of Mormonism: A Growing Interest in Academia,” FARMS Review 19, no. 1: 119-74.

Cowan, Douglas E. 203. Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Davies, J. Douglas. 2003. An Introduction to Mormonism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

____. 2000. The Mormon Culture of Salvation. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

____. 1991. “Pilgrimage in Mormon Culture,” in Makhan Jha (ed), Social Anthropology of Pilgrimage. New Delhi: Inter-India.

Dawson, Lorne L. 1998. Comprehending Cults: The Sociology of New Religious Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Edison, Carol. 1989. “Mormon Gravestones: A Folk Expression of Identity and Belief,” Dialogue 22, no. 4 (Winter): 89-94.

Fackre, Gabriel. 1997. The Doctrine of Revelation: A Narrative Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Hexham, Irving and Karla Poewe. 1997. New Religions as Global Cultures: Making the Human Sacred. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hexham, Irving, Stephen Rost and John W. Morehead II, eds. 2004. Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional.

Jenkins, Philip. 2000. Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, Philip. 1997. “The Aquarian Age and Apologetics,” Lutheran Theological Journal 34:2 (December): 51-60.

Johnson, Philip, Anne C. Harper and John W. Morehead, eds. 2004. “Religious and Non-Religious Spirituality in the Western World (‘New Age’).” Lausanne Occasional Paper No. 45. Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization and Morling Press.

Krieger, David. 1993. “Communication Theory and Interreligious Dialogue,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies (Summer-Fall): 331-53.

Lash, Nicholas. 1986. Theology on the Way to Emmaus. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Lyon, Jack M., Linda Ririe Gundry, Jay A. Parry, eds. 1997. Best-Loved Stories of the LDS People, Vol. 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company.

McDermott, Gerald R. 2000. Can Evangelicals Learn From World Religions? Jesus, Revelation & Religious Traditions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Mortenson, Viggo, ed. 2003. Theology and the Religions: A Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing.

Millet, Robert L. and Gregory C.V. Johnson. 2007. Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation Between a Mormon and an Evangelical. Rhinebeck, NY: Monkfish Book Publishing Company.

Millet, Robert L. and Gerald R. McDermott. 2007. Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

Mitchell, Hildi J. 2002. “Postcards from the Edge of History: Narrative and the Sacralisation of Mormon Historical Sites,” Journeys 3, no. 1: 133-57.

Muck, Terry. 1993. “Evangelicals and Interreligious Dialogue,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (December): 517-529.

Musser, Donald W. and David L. Paulsen, 2007. Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Olsen, Steve. 1996-97. “Celebrating Cultural Identity: Pioneer Day in Nineteenth-Century Mormonism,” BYU Studies 36, no. 1: 159-177.

____. 1980. “Community Celebrations and Mormon Ideology of Place,” Sunstone 5, no. 3 (May-June 1980): 40-45.

Phillips, Timothy R. and Dennis L. Okholm, eds. 1996. The Nature of Confession: Evangelicals & Postliberals in Conversation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Robinson, Stephen E. 1991. Are Mormons Christians?. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft.

Saliba, John A. 2003. Understanding New Religious Movements, 2nd ed. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

____. 1992. “Mormonism in the Twenty-first Century,” Studia Missionalia 41: 49-67.

____. 1993. “Dialogue with the New Religious Movements: Issues and Prospects,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 30, no. 1 (Winter): 61-80

Sorenson, John L. 1981. “Ritual as Theology,” Sunstone 27 (May-June): 11-14.

Swidler, Leonard, 1983. “The Dialogue Decalogue: Ground Rules for Interreligious Dialogue,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 20, no. 1: 1-4.

Tacy, David. 1990. Dialogue with the Other: The Inter-Religious Dialogue. Louvain: Peeters Press.

Wilson, William A. 1998. “The Study of Mormon Folklore: An Uncertain Mirror for Truth,” Dialogue 22, no. 4 (Winter): 95-110.

____. 1995. “Mormon Narratives: The Lore of Faith,” Western Folklore 54, no. 4 (October): 303-26.

Yandell, Keith E., ed. 2001. Faith and Narrative. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Yong, Amos. 2008. Hospitality & the Other: Pentecost, Christian Practices, and the Neighbor. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Tom Boellstorff and an Ethnography of Second Life

As part of my continuing reflections on the cultural, sociological, and theological implications of digital technologies, including videogames and virtual cultures, one of the resources I have found helpful is Tom Boellstorff's Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008). Boellstorff is associate professor in the department of anthropology at University of California, Irvine, and editor-in-chief of American Anthropologist. We finally coordinated our schedules for an interview by phone on the topic, but the technology used to record our conversation failed us, and all that remains are Tom's responses to my last two questions. Even so, they provide some insights into the significance of virtual cultures like Second Life, and the value of Tom's research.

Morehead's Musings: How have forms of cybersociality result in the creation of new "electronic tribes"?

Tom Boellstorff: Well, I wouldn't call them tribes exactly, but they do represent new ways of connecting people. The fact that people can use a blog or website or something like that to share information and notes is important, so we need to remember that people can get together not just in virtual worlds, but also in blogs and websites, and many people in Second Life have these and interact with others through them as well. And these are not reducible to each other. But there are possibilities inside a virtual world that are different from what you can do with a web page, but once again the virtual world phenomenon is broader that shares some things in common with other aspects of the Internet, but there are some aspects of it that are unique and unprecedented.

Morehead's Musings: In your research in Second Life what surprised you most about your conceptions of selfhood and community that had to be revised as a result?

Tom Boellstorff: One thing that really did surprise me but it shouldn't have, was an interesting parallel with my Indonesia research was that things weren't as different as I expected them to be. In my research on gay Indonesians my assumption was you go half way around the world to a very different place, and sometimes as researchers we feel that if you haven't found something that's really different that we haven't done our job, that we're really supposed to find something interesting, cool, and things that are really different. One thing I learned as a researcher is when you find things that seem the same, and in some cases are similar in certain ways, then we really have to stop and think about it because many times people don't. When you go into Second Life to do research as I have you find that it's very different and very interesting and I can mention a couple of things that I mention in the book.

My main surprise was that you go into Second Life and find grass, and trees, and the ocean, and people hanging out in their houses and watching television, going shopping to buy a shirt, or getting into a fight with their lover, but things that actually in a way are not different from what they do in the actual world is taking place. But this can be interesting too because you can ask why people would rather go into a virtual world at all, and another question is sometimes we see things that look very similar but if you scratch under the surface for a second you see that they are actually quite different. But the continuities with the actual world are very important for researchers because virtual worlds have gone become places with millions of people in them in just a few years, and if they were absolutely, completely, and utterly different from anything that came before how in the world would you understand it? So the similarities are very important.

In terms of differences there are some really big differences that are important to talk about. One of the biggest is embodiment. In a virtual world you can change the way you look with the click of a mouse, you can change your race, your height, you can become an animal, and in most of these virtual worlds you can have different embodiments. So it's not just that you can become a man or a woman or animal or person, but a man for one hour to go to a party and afterwards become a woman again, and then turn into an elf, and then after that turn into a human again. So it's not just that it's changeable, but that it's easily changeable. Ideally though, you don't have to only pick one thing. In the physical world to change your embodiment is extremely difficult. It's very hard to change your race or gender, and some people can do the latter just with clothes or hormones, but changing your body in any significant way is nearly impossible. But to go back and forth in embodiments, or to become a fifty feet tall dragon and then to become a two feet tall dwarf because you feel like it is not something you can do in the physical world. You can't have two bodies in the physical world, whereas in Second Life you can have as many as you like through your avatars, so that's another significant difference. So there are many differences between the actual world and the virtual world and embodiment is one of the major differences.

In terms of community there is almost less difference because community in the physical world for many years now hasn't been as closely connected to place as it used to be. So let's take the community I work in, the gay community, is that an area, is it just in bars, is it where people live, is in magazines, or what does it mean to talk about community in this sense? This is the same when whether we are talking about the African-American or Jewish community, these are no longer defined in relation to senses of places in limited geographical terms. I think the notion of community has been exploded beyond its connection to place for some time now. So virtual community for people is less of a stretch. An interesting thing in virtual worlds is you almost get a relocalization of community in some cases. You have instances where places in the actual world are connected to virtual places. The ideas of community are obviously changing as well, but these are obviously always moving targets, because what this means in Indonesia or California or Nebraska is different and changing. Representations of community in the virtual world adds other dimensions to our ongoing transformations of senses of community. And identity conceptions are being reconfigured in the same way.

Morehead's Musings: Tom, thank you again for your interesting anthropological ethnographic portrait of Second Life, your ongoing research in this area, and for making time in a busy academic schedule to discuss these things. I hope others will look into this phenomenon from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, including theology.

Carl Raschke: GloboChrist: The Great Commission Takes a Postmodern Turn

Carl Raschke (PhD, Harvard University) is professor and chair of the department of religious studies at the University of Denver. In addition, he serves as an adjunct faculty member at Mars Hill Graduate School and is the author of twenty books. He recently returned from traveling over the holidays and has made time to discuss his most recent book GloboChrist.

Morehead's Musings: Carl, thanks again to you and Baker Academic for your help in my taking a look at this book. How did the subject of postmodernism come to capture your interest in GloboChrist: The Great Commission Takes a Postmodern Turn (Baker Academic, 2008) and your earlier volume The Next Reformation (Baker Academic, 2004)?

Carl Raschke: I have been reading and reflecting on what these days is called “postmodernism” since the late 1970s when I began to publish more technical, philosophical, and theological books and articles on the subject. My book The End of Theology, available as a reprint these days through The Davies Group publishers, was a pioneering work in an emerging field that is now quite establishment and mainstream. Because I was already known as “Professor Postmodernism,” but I also had a reputation as a committed evangelical, or evangelical sympathizer (depending on how you specify those terms), Baker asked me to write The Next Reformation as a way of explaining how postmodernity was quite compatible, in contrast to much of the know-nothingism and trashing of the word by certain self-appointed “authorities” out there, with biblical faith and commitment. In light of the fascination of younger Christian pastors and academics with “postmodernism,” Baker then launched the series which includes my latest book, which represents an effort to expand the parameters of the earlier conversations.

Morehead's Musings: You define your subject matter in the book beyond evangelical concerns over epistemology to include "the growing anxieties over what is happening under the impact of the forces we call globalization and the political, cultural, and religious upheavals that arise in its wake." Why do you think many evangelicals in the West so focused on epistemological issues and have missed the broader implications of the global change?

Carl Raschke: What we have experienced in the past twenty years in the evangelical world is a grievous – perhaps we should even say “gruesome” - disconnect between theological reflection and God’s actual call upon our lives. The problem began at least two generations ago when evangelicals felt they had to mount an ongoing “fundamentalist”, or literalist, defense of the truth of Scripture against the attacks of Darwinists, historical reductionists, and the many varieties of “scientism”. The so-called “battle for the Bible” was really a clash of sectarian epistemologies and, in retrospect we can see, had little to do with the truth or authority of Scripture. But, ironically, the evangelical magisterium at the time felt the only way it could defend its biblical convictions – after all, that’s what makes an evangelical in the first place – was to fight with the captured armaments of the enemy which for decades, ever since Bertrand Russell, had been used against them. The preferred weapon was a form of Anglo-American philosophy that idolized the “scientific method” and was known as logical positivism.

Logical positivism became obsolete in the secular academy in the early 1960s and was effectively brought to its knees – rightly – by the French and German “post-structuralists” who were later renamed postmodernists. The second, and even greater, irony is that in attacking postmodernism as a philosophical movement – what is really under attack, however, if you read the polemics carefully, is some vague notion of contemporary culture as a whole that has nothing to do with any substantive, academic issues – the evangelical old guard is attacking their own liberators. It’s not unlike the Shia militias in Iraq who started shooting at the American forces who saved them from the oppression of Saddam Hussein.

The third irony is that in insisting on a now irrelevant, obsolete, and discredited form of late modernist epistemological certainty as the basis for Christian faith – the total opposite of the Augustinian dictum of fides quaeranas intellectum and the Reformation principle of sola fide – the old guard has essentially destroyed the credibility for non-believers of that which it sought fanatically to make credible, which it never really succeeded in doing anyway. It’s the contemporary version of “tithing mint and cumin” while neglecting what the gospel is really all about. As we are now witnessing with the collapse of the so-called “Religious Right” in America and the rise of what Phillip Jenkins calls the “next Christendom,” the old guard will have its reward.

Morehead's Musings: You critique both "carping old-guard evangelicals" and those in the postmodern "emerging church" equally in this book. How would you describe the errors of both camps? And how do you see this internal squabble as "simply a replay of the modernist-fundamentalist debates of a century ago."

Carl Raschke: The “error” can be summed up in a simple characterization – a narrow sort of time-bound, uniquely American, religious parochialism that has exhausted itself in an ultimately inconsequential fight that has come to be known as the “culture wars.” Call it our own contemporary Christian version of the Thirty Years War. And like the Thirty Years War of the seventeenth century, it has left living and committed faith prostrate in this country.

Morehead's Musings: In your discussion of global postmodern Christianity you state that "Westerners cling to the outmoded modernist assumption that Christianity is basically the same, or should be the same, everywhere in the world." How has this assumption kept evangelicals from moving beyond the culture wars within the church to consider the broader issues of global Christianity and contextualization?

Carl Raschke: God is always the same from age to age, but he accomplishes his will and purpose in a vast variety of different ways and by using myriad historical actors and heterogeneous cultural forms and expressions. The danger from the human side is that believers easily confuse these forms and expressions with the ultimate will and purpose of God himself. In a biblical sense we call this confusion “idolatry.” As the Hebrew prophets showed us, true believers always tend to confuse this with “truth.” The history of idolatry from the golden calf worshippers to Ahab to the “false teachers” which the apostolic writers constantly reference is one of those “believers” who thought they could “improve on” the epistemological uncertainty of walking in faith by providing us with a “once and for all” and non-contextualizable version of “Christian truth.” We are called constantly as Christians to contextualize because God is always contextualizing. That’s what we really mean when make the very biblical statement that God is sovereign and in control of human history. Otherwise, faith would be nothing more than a simple form of propositional assent, as it is in Islam, or some timeless illumination of a putative eternal “truth” (i.e., Gnosticism). History, especially the history of Christianity itself, is the record of God contextualizing.

Morehead's Musings: At one point in your book you state something that will likely be considered provocative by evangelicals: "To be Christian is not simply to believe in the divinity of Jesus or to subscribe to a set of doctrines, although historically these epistemic tests of the faith have not been inconsequential. It is both to reveal Christ in who we are and to see the face of Christ in those we encounter". Can you expand on this idea of incarnational Christianity that you have in mind and how it relates to the epistemic and doctrinal aspects usually conceived of in terms of self-definitions by Western evangelicals?

Carl Raschke: If you may permit me, I would like to invite you to examine the very premises of your own question here. You ask me to justify somehow incarnational Christianity in terms of “epistemic and doctrinal aspects” of the “self-definitions” of Western evangelicals. First, I would question whether there really are such “epistemic and doctrinal aspects” in the first place, unless you are subtly offering a certain theological position as normative for all evangelicals. Can you really find a common “self-definition” among Calvinists, Lutherans, Mennonites, Southern Baptists, etc. other than the different ways in which they all adhere confessionally and theologically to the Reformation precept of sola Scriptura? But, of course, it is that adherence which distinguishes evangelicals from other forms of Christianity for the most part anyway, and the distinction has little to do with epistemology or even “doctrine.” I can’t think of one set of “doctrines” that define all, or even most, evangelicals. It’s not the Westminster or the Augsburg Confession or the Chicago Statement on inerrancy, although I’m sure there are quite a few evangelical theologians who are convinced to this day they’ve distilled the whole of evangelicalism with the Chicago statement. We’ve also got the issue of Pentecostals who consider themselves “evangelicals” (in my mind they are without question), though there are other denominations that deny it.

Of course all evangelicals subscribe to the ancient creeds, particularly the Nicene and the Chalcedonian, but so does Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and that of course begs your question. The bottom line, as Luther discovered half a millennium ago, is that you can’t ultimately “define” Christianity, let alone “evangelical” Christianity, “epistemically”. Epistemologies are time-bound and culture-bound. God’s reality, his promise, and his faithfulness are not. That’s why we have to keep going back to Scripture and read it faithfully in our own language and through our own cultural lenses so that the Spirit, as Augustine pointed out long ago, will reveal its timeless meaning at a particular moment in time.

As for the premise that Christianity is “incarnational”, that doesn’t need to be defended theologically and it certainly isn’t dependent on any “epistemology.” As Lamin Sanneh points out, it’s the very core of the Christian revelation, as the Fourth Gospel proclaims. As I’ve put it myself, the Christian revelation is not a text (otherwise, we might as well become Muslims); it is not a doctrine (otherwise, we evangelicals are far more Roman Catholic than we want to admit); it is a person. That’s what makes the Christian revelation unique. And as Christians we share in the death and resurrection, the “eternal life” of that person, who dwells or “tabernacles” with us wherever we go, wherever we are gathered together. Luther in The Freedom of a Christian, the most important and powerful Reformation tract ever written that more than any document perhaps does “define” evangelicalism, wrote that to be a Christian means that “we are Christs to each other” (the phrase I quote extensively in GloboChrist), he was merely boiling down the whole approach of sola Scriptura into an essential statement of what the Christian revelation really amounts to. The Christian revelation cannot be contained in a doctrine. The revelation is a relation.

Morehead's Musings: In your discussion of Islam and the idea of competing revelations with Christianity and its rapid growth in the Southern Hemisphere, you cite the "fatal attraction to contemporary consumer culture" that represents a great weakness for Western Christianity. Must it overcome its own "demons" in this area before it can hope to grapple adequately with the challenge of Islam?

Carl Raschke: Yes. Without doubt. The fatal attraction is of course even more fatal because we’ve made Christian practice and participation in the West a matter of consumer satisfaction. Bells and smells, or candles and sandals? Do you prefer electronic guitars and pastors with tattoos, or traditional hymns to a bellowing organ? No matter, we’ll package and customize your spiritual life in a manner that works for you and you’ll be comfortable with. “Seeker-friendly” really means user-friendly. That’s what I call “Burger King Christianity” after the hamburger chain’s famous slogan – “have it your way.” Of course, Jesus was the opposite of P.T. Barnum, whose motto was to give ‘em what they want. Unfortunately, the majority of churches in America these days aren’t much different from Barnum and Bailey circuses. Having it our way and having it God’s way is the simple difference between sheer idolatry and profound faith. Hopefully, the sudden collapse of the global consumer economy since I finished writing the book may be God’s wake-up call to all of us. We can’t have it our way necessarily any more.

Morehead's Musings: You state that one of the facets of global Christianity must be its "rhizomic" nature. Can you briefly define Gilles Deleuze's concept of the rhizome and how you see it as applicable to global Christianity?

Carl Raschke: Sure. I won’t use Deleuze’s philosophical language to explain the rhizome, but just think of an iris, which is a rhizome. If you plant iris bulbs one fall and several years later dig them up to transplant them, you will be amazed how all those “bulbs” are now a rapidly spreading and interlinked network of tubers that manifest above ground as an iris bed. The ginger plant is another classic example of a rhizome, and many of those weeds in your garden you can’t ever seem to “root out” because they are spreading everywhere beneath the soil have rhizomic properties. What distinguishes rhizomic growth from what Deleuze calls “arboreal” growth (i.e., roots and shoots) is that the rhizome does not depend on soil, moisture, and sunlight for growth as much as its own internal system of nourishment, which is usually underground In other words, all the parts are dependent on each other and nourish each other as they grow. The rhizome goes where it grows and grows where it goes. That’s why Paul’s “church planting” was so successful and why the early church grew so fast, despite intense persecution.

Western Christianity has lost its rhizomic relationality and “global” connectivity, which the early church had in abundance. Because cultures in the global south have adopted a church model that follows these trajectories of rhizomic relationality – actually, many of them, particularly in Africa, are just trading on natural kinship and extended family ties, but with a distinct difference – this “next Christendom,” as Jenkins terms it, is expansive and dynamic, while Western Christianity with its individualistic and “arboreal” culture of spiritual consumerism is slowly dying. Most churches in America are simply glorified mom-and-pop shops (“Jesus boutiques”) that cater to very local constituencies with their own spiritual tastes, which are constantly changing or becoming obsolete. They can’t, and won’t, survive the global changes that are already happening. Have you noticed that certain grasses – e.g., Bermuda grass, another rhizome – always survive droughts and winter kill, while arboreal forms perish?

We talk a lot about in Christianity about the “body of Christ,” which was Paul’s term, adapting for the early church the dominant political metaphor of his day for the interdependence of the different ethne or “nations” under the rule of Rome. The term “body of Christ” was simply a way of saying the risen Lord is now the true “head” of this vast and connected corpus, rather than Caesar. We don’t have a global empire any longer, Hardt and Negri’s book Empire aside. But we do have an interlinked and incredibly interdependent dynamic world linked through communications and diplomatic and trade relations. Animating those worldly relations with the relationality embodied in Christ – Christ not just “for me”, but “for each other” – is what the church of the twenty-first century has as its “postmodern” version of the Great Commission.

The church as Christ-rhizome, the GloboChrist. God’s great “iris bed” to come.

Morehead's Musings: Carl, thanks again for an engaging book, and for discussing it here. I hope it spawns more discussion.

HALOS AND AVATARS: Playing Games with God Conference

I have been asked to submit a chapter for consideration for a forthcoming book through Baker Academic that deals with video games and digital cultures. Those who have their submissions accepted will meet in southern California early next year to discuss and present them at the HALOS AND AVATARS conference. The Brehm Center website describes this event:

Been swept up in a Halo marathon? Run from the law in Grand Theft Auto? Floated through Second Life as a furry avatar? Where is God amidst these imaginative activities?

From Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games like World of Warcraft to Social Networking sites like Facebook, virtual selves and digital communities are on the rise. Electronic entertainment (like videogames) has surpassed movies in both profit and influence. Yet, little research has covered the sacred aspects of videogames and digital cultures. The field is literally wide open. Leading thinkers and game designers will converge in Los Angeles for the next Reel Spirituality conference on February 28, 2009.

What sacred symbols are found within the games or universe you’re exploring?

Can religious rites be extended into virtual worlds?

What does real ministry look like amidst digital cultures?

Bring your avatar and your questions to Reel Spirituality 2009.

Reel Spirituality Conference and 15th Annual City of Angels Film Festival

Watch January 1, 2009 for the date: slated for late February or early March. The Reel Spirituality Conference will focus on electronic video games from formats like Playstations and Wii to phenomenon like Halo, Grand Theft Auto, and Second Life.

The City of the Angels Film Festival celebrates the best new, spiritually charged films.

Click here to register for HALOS AND AVATARS.

Pagan-Christian Dialogue: Moving Beyond Our Skepticism

In a recent post I mentioned the new edition of Sacred Tribes Journal that is available. Its contents includes two reviews of Philip Johnson and Gus diZerega's Beyond the Burning Times: A Pagan and Christian in Dialogue (Lion, 2008), a volume I was privileged to edit. The reviews of the book have brought it to the attention of the Pagan community on the Internet once again on places like the Strange Onion Peelings and The Wildhunt blogs. The continued interest and positive reception of the book is good, but some of the discussion surrounding the issue of Pagan-Christian dialogue is more concerning.

On the Strange Onion Peeling, blogger James French expresses skepticism concerning differing views of religious pluralism between Pagans and Christians, and in the comments responding to this Chas Clifton writes:

"I tend to agree with the overall point of your post, which is why I avoid interfaith pow-wows. Those folks just don’t “get” polytheism, immanence, sacred sexuality, and other components of contemporary Pagan ways. They want to know just enough about us to convert us — or to find something about our ways to praise while ignoring the “icky” parts."

On The Wildhunt, Jason Pitzl-Waters is appreciative of the dialogue process, and the new voices in Christianity among "missional Christians" attempting to chart a new way forward between our communities. Even so, he understands why his fellow Pagans maintain a skeptical and perhaps pessimistic stance on the dialogue process.

After reading some of this commentary over the last couple of days I'd like to share my thoughts with Pagans and Christians interested in these issues

First, I want to express my thanks for those on both sides of this issue to those who are interested in Beyond the Burning Times, and who are reading through it for reviews for their religious communities. I think this is a significant volume that was put forward with the best of intentions and a lot of hard work for everyone involved.

Second, I acknowledge that Christians and Pagans do have different views over issues like religious pluralism, and it is precisely because we do have our differences that the dialogue process needs to continue. Should we continue to either ignore, stereotype or demonize each other merely because we disagree? More dialogue on such important issues informed by careful philosophical and thealogical/theological reflection will help us understand and clarify our perspectives, even if we don't persuade each other of the legitimacy of these perspectives.

Third, my hope is that projects like Beyond the Burning Times, and the handful of Christians developing a new way of understanding and engaging our Pagan friends will be accepted as a good faith effort that can build enough trust for our relationships and continued dialogues to move forward.

Fourth, I respectfully disagree with the sentiments expressed by Chas Clifton in his comments on Strange Onion Peeling. There are Christians who are making a good effort at understanding Paganism, including the aspects he specifically mentions. Therefore, we do "get it," even though we have a long way to go in our understanding. And we are not attempting to understand just enough of Paganism to combine it with a nicer approach in order to convert people. Yes, we feel an obligation to be obedient to Jesus' command to "make disciples," and in so doing share the pathway of Jesus when it is appropriate and desired, but we do not view people as mere objects for evangelism. There is a far broader agenda at work here. To assume otherwise perpetuates the stereotypes we desperately need to move beyond.

In light of the comments on this topic in the blogosphere over the last few days I have contacted a select group of my Christian academic colleagues with the suggestion that we try to arrange a public Pagan-Christian dialogue at an educational institution in the near future. This has been done successfully and helpfully in the evangelical-Mormon context, and it needs to be done in the Pagan-Christian context as well. Such an event would enable us to discuss important issues like religous pluralism, and would hopefully move us beyond the present moment of skepticism. I hope others will join me in maintaining a more positive spirit, and in putting a public dialogue forum together to build upon the book exchange.

The Symbolic Significance of Shoes

One of the things I really enjoyed about my graduate studies that looked at understanding cultures was the ways in which elements within cultures can mean very different things in diverse cultural contexts. I continue to find the study of such things helpful, and it is applicable to a recent event that made the international news.

The media has shown the clip of an Iraqi journalist tossing his shoes at President Bush many times, and much of what I've seen tends to trivialize the event, or present it with tongue in cheek (as in, isn't it funny what that crazy Iraqi did?). But the episode is rich with cultural symbolism and meaning that Americans would do well to reflect on.

Two new stories in Religion Dispatches discuss this. The first is "The Shoe Thrower: What Bush Didn't Understand" by Mark Woodward. Following is an excerpt:

"Throughout the Muslim world, and in most of Asia, shoes are ritually impure. They are “dirty” in more than the material sense of the word. One does not, ever, wear shoes or sandals in mosques, shrines, temples, or in most instances in peoples’ homes. In my travels in Asia over the past three decades I have often encountered signs at the entrances to holy places reading something like: “Boundary of Holiness. Footwearing Strictly Prohibited.” Muslims remove their shoes and wash their feet, hands, and faces before prayer to purify themselves.

"There is also a long history of diplomatic impasses and political conflict stemming from the refusal of western envoys to remove their shoes while visiting Muslim and other Asian capitals, and the refusal of Asian monarchs to make exceptions to accommodate Westerners’ discomfort at the thought of appearing shoeless in official capacities. To throw a shoe at a visiting head of state and erstwhile ally is very close to the ultimate expression of disgust and defiance."

The second article is "Missing the Anger for Shoes" by Hussein Rashid which provides another perspective on this incident. Regardless of the specifics of the interpretation it appears that there is an important symbolic significance to the shoe throwing incident, one that does not bode well for American foreign policy in Iraq or our continued perceptions in the Muslim world.

Sacred Tribes Journal, Vol. 3, no. 2 Now Available

Volume 3, Number 2 (Fall 2008): 97-216

ISSN 1941-8167

Editor's Introduction

Volume three number two of Sacred Tribes Journal is now online. Our second volume of 2008 features three articles on religious movements, three book reviews and a movie review. In addition, we have included a report on a recent consultation on new spiritualities. The articles are of special note. Each gives descriptive accounts of religious movements both in the United States and abroad. Two of the articles are written by emerging scholars of religion and Sacred Tribes Journal is proud to publish the first articles of their promising careers.

The volume begins with an article on vampire religion co-authored by David and Kiara Falk. David Falk is an Master of Divinity candidate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School researching Egyptian Gnosticism and is also completing an MA in Biblical and Near Eastern Archaeology and Languages. Kiara Falk is a MA student at TEDS researching the vampire hysteria during the Enlightenment. Their article analyzes a recent survey focused on practitioners of vampirism. After discussing the demographics and trends of the religion the Falks do a comparative study of vampirism and contemporary Paganism. The article concludes with information about various vampire religions found on the Internet. The Falks’ descriptive article makes a nice contribution to the study of this emerging religious movement.

Our second article describes a new religious movement in Korea. The author, Seung Min Hong, is a Korean student studying at Trinity Graduate School. He is currently completing a MA in Communication and Culture with a focus on religious studies. Hong’s article describes two sects whose focus of worship is Kan Jeung San, a self-proclaimed incarnate god. This Korean movement with nationalistic tendencies has grown to over seven million adherents since 1974. Of the two sects, Jeung San Do is the most active in propagating beliefs with seven religious houses in the United States. Hong asserts that understanding this movement will help in understanding the religious climate of Korea and her people.

Finally, Harold Netland makes an important contribution in understanding Zen Buddhism. Netland is Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Intercultural Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has lived much of his life in Japan. Among his publications are Encountering Religious Pluralism (InterVarsity Press, 2001); Globalizing Theology (Baker Academic, 2006) edited with Craig Ott; and Spirituality Without God? Buddhist Enlightenment and Christian Salvation (Paternoster, forthcoming) written with Keith Yandell. Netland addresses the issue of the impact of globalization and modernization on a religious movement. With particular focus on Buddhism’s transmission to the West, he uses the example of D.T. Suzuki and his ability to contextualize Zen. The article clearly suggests that religions are influenced by cultures as well as influenced by those who are leading them. In order to understand religion in a globalized context, it is insufficient to simply know about religious history, we must also know about the people who are practicing religions, the cultures where they emerge and their leaders.

In addition, this issue includes links to the video lectures of the Trinity Consultation, and the most recent entries for the Sacred Tribes Journal Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements.

Call for articles for theme issue on Mormonism and Evangelicalism and Dialogical Theology and Apologetics

Sacred Tribes Journal is an electronic publication devoted to the academic exploration of new religious movements. The editors of this publication are currently seeking submissions for consideration that will comprise a special theme issue related to Mormonism.

Background
The academic conversation between evangelical and Latter-day Saints has been taking place for some time. At times this has been dialogical, and at other times scholars from both sides of the religious divide have put forward ideas and responses in forums representative of their own religious communities without direct interaction with opposing points of view. While such approaches to scholarship have their benefits, a dialogical form of academic engagement can be especially helpful. One recent and promising example of this is found in Donald W. Musser and David L. Paulsen, eds., Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies (Mercer University Press, 2007). This volume is important in that it avoids the tendency among evangelical and LDS scholars to engage in their discussion and scholarship in their own religious communities independent of direct interaction with the religious community they are writing about.

In addition to these considerations much of the dialogue and scholarly effort up to this point has been defined by boundary definition and maintenance concerns for both communities, and with the question, “Is Mormonism Christian?” lingering in the background, and at times in the forefront of interaction. While self-identity and definition are important considerations for both religious communities, there are also broader perspectives to consider that can help us understand each other more. Sacred Tribes Journal would like to serve as a forum for such exploration.

There is also the possibility for fresh perspectives to come outside of Latter-day Saint and evangelical Protestant frameworks. Broader Christendom and other places in the academy may contribute the results of their observations on evangelical-LDS interactions that may help address potential blindspots and provide for additional understanding.

Call for Submissions
The editors of Sacred Tribes Journal are planning on a special theme issue devoted to Mormonism and evangelicalism that will involve dialogical approaches to theology, and perhaps apologetic approaches. A collection of evangelical and Mormon scholars will be put together and these submissions will be reviewed by representatives of the other religious community so that a response can be offered. Issues discussed in papers may include the following:

• Perceptions of the state of affairs since How Wide the Divide?.

• The extent to which apologetic arguments and counter-arguments have been understood and responded to since The New Mormon Challenge and the FARMS response and critique of this work.

• Ethical-ritual practice perspectives.

• The place of narrative and culturally-formative stories play in understanding Mormonism in contrast with creedal and systematic theology perspectives of Protestantism.

• How narrative and ritual provide overarching hermeneutical frameworks within Mormonism in its biblical interpretation.

If you are interested in submitting an article for consideration, for general considerations please see the guidelines for contributors, and for specific questions related to this issue please contact John Morehead at johnwmorehead@msn.com.

Jesus as Archetype Shaman?

In the recent edition of Jesus Manifesto there was an article by my friend and colleague, Phil Wyman of the Gathering in Salem. The article is titled "Jesus as the Archetype Shaman". I have copied it below for reflection and feedback. How might this concept be received by those in tribal cultures? What about the idea in the Neo-Pagan community? On to Phil's article:

Ascent to the heavens, descent to the underworld, an experience of death and resurrection, acting as a psychopomp to the lost souls of dead humans, story-teller, cultural icon and outcast, healer, exorcist…these are the works, and the personal experiences of a Shaman.

These are also the things which set Christ apart as unique in human history. These are things of which He is an exemplary model, and humanity’s ideal for spiritual excellence and success. These elements are identified by religious historians as the signs, and activities of a Shaman. It is the contention of this article (and any following articles on the subject) that the Nazarene was the ideal of shamanic power and practice, and therefore The Archetypal Shaman.

This concept is not a new one. Others such as Peiter Craffert, and John Pilch have already done studies along these lines. Their ideas have been considered revolutionary by some, and heretical by others. Both Craffert and Pilch have appeared to have cast Jesus as the Galilean Shaman, at the expense of the orthodox Christian position of Messiah, and resurrected Lord of Heaven and Earth.

In contrast I understand Jesus to be the Savior of all humanity by means of His death and resurrection, and the unique Son of God. My position here in this article, and those that might follow is that Jesus carries many characteristics of the ideal Shaman, and exemplifies the power aspects, and ecstatic experiences of shamanism. In a shamanistic culture Jesus would have been viewed as the greatest of all Shamans, and both previous and subsequent Shamans would be a viewed as a diminishing of shamanic power, but coming from Jewish culture he was obviously held as the greatest of all prophets (and even more than that) to those who would follow Him.

By saying this I am not saying that all Christian ministers should become Shamans, nor am I saying that Jesus saw Himself as a Shaman. This is a simple presentation suggesting only that the things Jesus did are things Shamans all over the world have attempted to do throughout history, and that Christ is the exemplar of the experiences of the Shaman, and the goals which the Shaman seeks to accomplish. Deeper concepts, and further conclusions, which the reader may come to are their own surmisings, and not those which I am presenting here.

The Shaman is a type of medicine man who works for the community to bring healing, and prosperity. He battles evil spirits seeking to trouble humanity. Usually through ecstatic experiences of trances and soul travel the Shaman will discover healing remedies known only to God, or the gods. The Shaman may also lead the souls of those who have died to paradise through the same ecstatic soul journeys.

Eliade Mircea’s landmark book “Shamanism” published in 1951, held this as a central theme: That the diminished powers of Shamans were an oft repeated mythos across the continents and islands in which elements of shamanism could be found. Somewhere in the stories of ancient Shamans there was an archetypal Shaman whose powers far exceeded those of more recent history.

The degradation of power and also of an open and clean communication with the unseen realm of gods, goddesses and spirits is a repeated theme in the mythic stories in shamanistic cultures. This mirrors the story of the Fall in scripture. Once humanity walked in complete confidence before God - without shame, and in open and direct communication with Him. The hunt for a return to paradise underlies the story of our Christian scripture, and underlies the traditional stories of shamanism as well, and so the worlds of shamanism and Christianity meet at a common place.

“More than once we have discerned in the shamanic experience a “nostalgia for paradise” that suggests one of the oldest types of Christian mystical experience.” wrote Eliade in the epilogue of the English edition of his book.

I am convinced Jesus answers the “nostalgia for paradise,” and by doing so becomes the archetype of the Shaman.

More to come. Follow me as I follow Christ through the world of Shamanism.

Author Bio: Phil Wyman pastors a church in Salem, MA. His friends are Witches, Druids, Pagans, and Shamans - and some Christians too. His wife, Bev, is recovering from hand surgery right now, so he is being a nurse at home, but their 10 year old greyhound Holly is probably doing a better job of it.

Religion and Games: Beyond Ruffled Feathers to Critical Reflection

The latest email announcement for the always interesting Religion Dispatches included mention of a story that caught my eye. It is by S. Brent Plate, visiting associate professor of religious studies at Hamilton College, titled "Is Religion a Game?". I will warn my readers who may click the link above to read the story that the subject matter will likely be offensive, at least at first. But I hope readers can move beyond this to engage the more serious issues raised by Plate. As film director Terry Gilliam has said, "Frankly, if your religion is so vulnerable that a little bit of disrespect is going to bring it down, it's not worth believing in."

In the article Plate raises serious questions related to the overlap if not connection between religion and games, especially in light of a controversial new game:

"The buzz last week was a new board game (yes, board game, as in folded cardboard tables and dice and cards) called Playing Gods: The Board Game of Divine Domination. Following essentially the same strategy as Risk minus the armies, Playing Gods has each player assume the role of a different god or prophet in their attempt to take over the world. As the game’s website suggests: “This is done by spreading your believers, converting the followers of other gods, or killing them off with Acts of God.” The satiric figurines include a laughing Buddha with automatic weapon, Moses about to bash someone with stone tables held high, Muhammad armed with saber and hand grenade, Jesus wielding a bladed cross, and Kali with sword, shield, and severed head (oh, wait, that’s Kali’s typical depiction, see left). Denver University’s Professor of Religious Studies, Carl Raschke, claims in USA Today that the new game is “too stupid to go far,” and that may be so."

Hearing of such a game readers are, again, likely to have their ire raised, but the connections between gaming, and the broader considerations of play, have been recognized by scholars of various stripes. I have commented on this previously when I drew attention to C. S. Lewis's recognition of an encounter with transcendence in the joy experienced through play, and Peter Berger's inductive theological argument that play represents one of the "signals of transcendence" in the mundane world.

Plate concludes:

"If we want to understand religions, we have to understand their game-like qualities, and that religion might, at the heart of it all, be a game. Which does not make it trivial. Games can have high stakes. Games can entrance people to the point of risking much, if not all: cars and condos, wives and lives, fortunes and families. Games excite, annoy, produce joy and anguish, and take their players to great extremes of emotion and rationality, even as the player may still say “its only a game.” So, here’s a call to learn about religion by playing games. And vice versa. Choice and chance, destruction and creation, role-playing and playing one’s heart, are all at the center of the worlds that we call religions. We may live in our world, but play in another."

It would seem that play and gaming theology represents a fruitful avenue for those willing to take it seriously and to explore its potential. Can Christians move beyond their ruffled feathers to engage in critical reflection on such things?