Christian Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll

In studying religion and media, I have become amazed at the ingenuity that religious groups have in using different types of media. Beginning with radio decades ago, media has become an integral part of the process of evangelism in America. Many sociologists view this as a process of sheer economics: there are spiritually hungry individuals who are presented with a tremendous variety of options in the religious marketplace. (An amazing discussion of this economically-driven theory of the sociology of religion can be found in Marla Einstein's Brands of Faith [New York: Routledge, 2008]) Vying for space in that religious marketplace, religious institutions must therefore compete by using the best, the greatest, the loudest, and the latest. This is why we see success with megachurches, why televangelists bring in the big bucks, and why Rick Warren led the nation in prayer at Barack Obama's inauguration.

When it comes to media, conservative evangelicals know how to get a message out. Gone are the days of evangelicals being portrayed as gun-toting, overall-wearing, ignorant fundamentalists. They wear the latest fashion, have learned the latest lingo of teens and young adults, have studied the things that every age group struggles with, and have remained on top of the vast array of technological advances in media (with all the money in the world to put it to use). "If today's thriving Christian cultural products industry illustrates anything, it is that evangelicals continue to spread their messages using 'the newest thing,' be it film, video, or the Web" (Hendershot, 6). Their ability to adapt, nay, to evolve with popular (read: secular) culture has left a permeable boundary between the sacred and the profane, the religious and the non, a permeability that has left repercussions to both the secular and religious realms.

All this media has also, however, left an indelible influence in how young people today view issues of sexuality, identity, and gender roles. For class, we were assigned to read Revolve and Refuel, the names of the latest New Testament "Biblezines". These publications are New Testaments that have been translated into colloquial language for teens, the former being for girls and the latter for boys. With passages from Psalms in text language, quizzes that girls can take to determine their personality, and even "Goodbook" profile screenshots (as opposed to Facebook profiles), these publications are meant to blend into a students backpack alongside issues of Vogue, People, or Skateboarding Magazine. Thomas Nelson also publishes other age-appropriate versions of the New Testament such as Magnify (for children), Align (for men), and Becoming (for women).

In this post, however, I would like to explore a bit of the gender dichotomies that Revolve and Refuel perpetuate within their pages. As gendered publications, these Biblezines serve as a window into what, exactly, evangelicals see as the target of their messages. They both mirror and shape the audience to which they aim: they mirror it by using language and styles that are attractive to the audience while at the same time shaping the reader into the gendered portrayal that they give.

Revolve is unfortunately filled with posts and references to good looks, eating habits, and perception. Again, this may be a mirror of the audience (teen girls often struggle with their looks), but it can also be damaging. On page 20, the writers lay it out bluntly: "Like it or not, our dress can speak volumes about us". This was then followed by an article on throwing out clothes and choosing items that are more tasteful and hip. "Fashion 4-1-1" is a recurring post that focuses on a girl's dress, as well as a "Style Solutions" side bar. Articles like "Supersize your self-control" (on how much and what to eat) or "What is beauty" (emphasizing that beauty is just what God sees) stand within pages of each other, offering contradictory and confusing messages for an already burdened reader. Focus on your style, but don't worry about it too much because it's inside what matters; smile a lot and show your Christianity with your looks, but stop "putting on tons of makeup, having your nails done, tanning and anything else surrounding the idea of obsessing over your self-image" (Revolve, 186).

Boys, on the other hand, are presented as brutes. They are sex-hungry, a bit dense, and easy to please with video games, music, skateboards, or television. From the beginning, Refuel assures the reader that "as a male, you're hardwired to be hot-blooded. You may be as mild-mannered as Clark Kent, yet anger is always boiling just under the surface" (Refuel, 30). How reassuring. The rest of the publication reminds the reader to calm this anger and frustration, instead using it to power a "radical faith" or to "fight the fight". Abrasive terminology coupled with the assumption of males as short-tempered dots the whole piece. In one part, the publication asks "What is your first reaction when someone does you wrong? For most guys, it's the thought of retaliation, payback, or revenge" (Refuel, 64).

So in the end, what is a reader supposed to do with all of this? Similar to how "prochastity teen media makes ignoring sex impossible," publications like Revolve make body issues difficult to forget! (Hendershot, 99) Young men, conversely, seem to be told that their rough-and-tough solutions to things are natural. Even though they are taught to repress those carnal emotions, young men are grown to understand their anger as being the common denominator.

I question, then, just how effective media like these publications are for evangelical teens. when teens begin questioning their sexuality and faith, as they inevitably do, how successful will evangelical media be in deterring their desires? Indeed, how effective are even the cited Biblical references? Hendershot does mention how "the rule book can backfire when teens study it and recognize the complicated or contradictory dimensions of the textual interpretations that adults put forth as straightforward and unquestionable, or when they notice the differences between isolated Scripture and the same Scripture in its context" (Hendershot, 102). How, then, do teens view publications like those presented by Hendershot? How is the audience, in this case, responding to the conservative messages? And how much damage is being done in the process? As a mirror and constructor of the world, how are publications like Revolve and Refuel furthering the dangers of Pandora's box that (as they see it) the secular world has already opened?

Creation in Twitter

I apologize for not posting recently. Apparently it's a bad mix to put mid-terms, the Head of the Charles, and a visit from friends into a week's time and mix it all with a good dose of homework on top. I will be back on schedule after my final midterm is due on Wednesday. I plan on posting this coming week.

In the meantime, please enjoy this website that details the creation myth from Genesis in Tweet form.

Cheers.

Unfortunate Linguistics

Adam Frank's recent article on Science and Religion Today, titled "Where Do Facts Live?", touches on the issues of "facts" in science and our increasing dependence upon these "facts". Frank calls it a "crutch" at one point in the article: "In that vein I wonder how much we lean on the certainty we think science gives us as a crutch, a replacement, for the certainty which is now more difficult to maintain through traditional religion." The piece, essentially, is an outspoken thought process of Frank where he ambles through our need for facts and the shaky origin of the facts that we so desire. For Frank, science is about creativity, about upending "our most cherished beliefs." He is trying to paint a contradictory image of science from the one that is prevalent in the public's eye; instead of focusing on the constancy of science, he is choosing to show the fluidity of it.

But there is a danger in all of this, and it has to do with language.

A couple of weeks ago, I was on Finnerman's Forum, a talk radio show here in Boston on WRKO. On the show, one caller brought up the issue of faith, about how scientists have a faith in their theories similar to that of religious faith. Arguments like these, however, only muddle issues rather than enlighten them. A hijacking of the word "faith" both denigrates religion and misrepresents science. Scientists believe that their models are true representations of reality, but I would not go so far as to say that scientists believe they know the "truth". Words like "theory" or "model" have a powerful epistemological weight in science; in colloquial language, a "theory" is transitory and ephemeral, merely the thought of the day. A "model" is just something on paper that can be drawn to fit a situation.

I bring this up because early on in Frank's piece, he states, "Traditional religious life also has its 'facts,' though in this domain the certainties are 'derived' from scripture. The hallmark of popular notions (and practice) of religious life is a certainty in these facts of a 'spiritual' universe." To use the terms in quotations above, even though he qualifies them with quotations, is in my opinion an unfair misrepresentation of the language. It is a problem that many writers of science and religion fall in to, one that must be recognized as a possible pitfall for writing in this area.

Language is incredibly important to pay attention to in writings on science and religion. Frank's piece is clearly an accommodationist one ("For me, the real radical promise of science is not its certainty but its constant creativity, its demand that we be willing, forever, to upend our most cherished beliefs. There have been many philosophies [and some religions] that emphasized the point that life is flux. Is this a place to ground our groundlessness?") that draws a binary that is historically inaccurate ("As a practicing scientist, I am much enamored with the potential to overthrow existing theories (and their interpretation of facts) in ongoing empirically based investigations. This is something that is rarely built into the structure of a religious institution.")

This is just something that has been on my mind with recent science and religion readings. Take care with your "theories" and have fun with your "myths".

Introducing Ardipithecus ramidus

Today is Christmas. After fifteen years, Tim White has finally published his findings on Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominin fossil specimen that dates to some 4.4 million years ago. In a time period roughly 2 million years before the development of stone tools (the presence of which was supposed to indicate the beginning of the Homo lineage), this specimen has been secretly in the works for this whole time. And when I say secretly, I literally mean secretly.

The world of Biological Anthropology has a kind of soap opera flavor to it. The alliances, the backstabbing, and the incredible egos all come together to give a field of science that is as much fun to study as the subject matter. I remember hearing about Ardipithecus in my first summer field excursion in South Africa. We talked about the find, about its importance and placement on the lineage leading to Homo and then were told about how Tim White was sitting on these specimens for as long as he could. I even remember hearing about how chances are that he had nothing but wanted to keep his name in the game by keeping it all out of the official science eye.

But it has now come. The cover of Science magazine has a beautiful picture of the collection. Several scientists wrote analyses of different aspects of the specimen, which gives it even more of a qualitative punch. Indeed, all of the articles on Ardipithecus comprise the main bulk of the current Science publication.

What an amazing find and an amazing publication that was long awaited. A wonderful overview of it all by Carl Zimmer can be found here. It's not too science-heavy, so don't be afraid.

Richard Dawkins on the Colbert Report

Colbert grills Dawkins in a wonderfully comedic clip.

Madonna of 115th Street 24 Years Later

While on a visit to New York City last weekend, I took a pilgrimage to the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Roman Catholic Church: site of the famous Harlem festa that was detailed in Robert Orsi's Madonna of 115th Street. A video of the last procession can be found here.

After having read Orsi's book twice, I kind of approached the church with a false sense of expectation. I somehow imagined that there would be Italian mothers walking down the street in preparation for a festa, that there would be Italians hanging out the windows yelling messages to their kids running down the street, or that there would be a packed procession leading up to the church. I don't know, at least something Italian. Maybe an issue of a domus or of gender power struggle? Anything?

[sigh] Instead, I encountered a very quiet street dotted with two or three pedestrians. Luckily, it was a brilliant Saturday morning, the sky cloudless and the air crisp. The church structure welcomed me as a beautiful anomaly in East Harlem. Amongst the stoops, the apartments, and the street vendors lies this dominating facade of the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Catholic Church. The color of the stone, a gray-white, shines in stark contrast to the surrounding brick and brown colors. And on a beautiful day like the one on which I visited, the church seems to radiate a brightness.

To actually get inside the Church, however, I had to go around the corner to 116th street. The front doors open for services on the weekend, but the parish is accessed through this back entrance on other days of the week. It lies right next to the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Convent.

Walking in this entrance, however, one is immediately reminded of the location of this parish in East Harlem. Fire escapes, windows of apartments, and air-conditioning units flaunt the sides and back of the church space. The steeple from the front of the church can be seen in the top right of this picture. The blue canopy on the bottom right is the entrance. On the edge it states: "Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Shrine".

And finally, the altar and Madonna. The Italian immigrants in the late 19th century worked so hard to have this shrine built for nostra mama. The altar, as you can see, is intricately decorated in classic Italian aesthetics. As my tour guide (possible priest of the parish) kept telling me, the parish has classic Italian architecture and decoration.

And here is nostra mama. Not the most impressive of objects in the church, I must admit that I was a bit taken back by how...um...simple the statue is. It looks like a plastic doll, something that has obvious importance due to the manner in which it was dressed but at the same time something that looks as though it was easy to mass-produce. I asked whether she is taken down for the festa anymore, and my informant told me that they only do it for special occasions. She was taken down this last festa because it was the 125th anniversary of the shrine.

For me, the canopy above the altar was much more impressive.

Again, the architecture of the church was classic Italian: three naves, stained glass, all the mysteries of the rosary were painted on the ceiling, etc. The current members are more Haitian than Italian, according to my informant.

Some statues of saints. All the saints presented among the church had clear roots to Italy. The man on the left is Vincent Pallotti, the founder of the movement that bears his name.

A finishing reminder of the new image of East Harlem. No more the Italian Harlem of Orsi's days, it is now comprised mainly of Puerto Rican and Haitian immigrants.

Walking the streets of East Harlem was a nostalgic experience, one that was a bit odd for me to explain. By reading Orsi's book, it is not easy to remain unconnected from his subjects and their lives. It is a book that gives a rich taste of the life and time; you can almost smell the tomato sauce in the air. Arriving to the shrine was both wonderful and surreal, an experience that made me shake my head at my naive expectations of Italian grandeur.

I wonder what Orsi's book would look like today? The man who walked me through the shrine had heard of the book but had never read nor seen it. It's amazing to think that Orsi's book remains as historical tome that bears very little resemblance to the present. In his second introduction, Orsi details how difficult it was for him to defend studying "history" that merely went back to the late 1880s and spanned close to his lifetime. And yet, 25 years later, the currents of time have already washed away many of the traces of the life and times from Orsi's book.

Could a new book be written of lived religion at Mt. Carmel? Probably. Would it be as interesting as Orsi's first? Who knows. What is important is the fact that the work of lived religion is so ephemeral, so fleeting. It comes, arrives, lives, and then often dies. It disappears, it changes, and it moves on. Is this a defense or criticism of lived religion? It's up to you.

Science and Religion Article - Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal had a very great article, "Man vs. God," on September 12, 2009. Was sent to me by a very good friend. The same question was asked to Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins: "Where does evolution leave God?" Their answers are thought-provoking. I'm a bit surprised about Richard Dawkins' constant appeal to alien life or other planetary life. It's one of his weakest arguments, in my opinion, whenever he speaks about the power of natural selection. Makes him sound much more like a science fiction writer than a scientist. But he seems to like it for some reason.