Theology

Hashtags Won’t Heal Us

Learning to lament in the 21st century.

Her.meneutics April 29, 2013

As a culture, we tend to think of grief as healthiest when abbreviated and restrained, as seemingly quick and efficient as other aspects of our fast-forward, high-tech lives.

Even mental health experts disagree over what "normal" grief looks like. Although the depressive symptoms of bereavement have long been considered standard to the grieving process, doctors proposed a revision to the newest edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to eliminate the bereavement exclusion from the definition of depression, allowing doctors greater freedom to diagnose and treat grief as a pathological condition.

Move on. This is the cultural imperative imposed on bereavement. We picture the season of mourning as a hurdle to clear and sadness as something to be eventually left behind. We're distinctly uncomfortable with tears. Grief, as a category of human experience, has grown closer to becoming something clinical in America, a condition worthy of a prescription.

This push to rush through or pathologize grief hasn't always been there. In her poignant piece, Let's Bring Back Mourning Clothes, Jana Riess recounts the loss of her mother and wishes for the days when one could, for a season of months, even years, don a black dress to signal sadness. "The purpose of the all-black fashion was to give the bereaved survivors some much-needed cultural latitude. The clothes they wore practically screamed, 'The following person requires a wide berth.'" Mourning clothes had the benefit of conveying, without a word, the need for a sympathetic space. They normalized grief by bringing it into public view, but they also safeguarded the healing process by signaling the bereaved must be handled with care. In this way, mourning clothes achieved a welcome symmetry between private and public grief—a symmetry we've since lost.

Following the respective deaths of my father and brother 15 and 20 years ago, I didn't grieve in the Victorian era of mourning clothes, nor in the age of digital disclosure. Grieving still maintained a private dimension. It was a time before cell phones and personal computers, so I had no virtual life or identity to manage, no dreaded obligation to articulate grief in 140 characters or a sum things up in Facebook status update. The only face I had to compose was my real one, and grieving was an act shared only with a close circle of friends and family. This was a real luxury: a public audience isn't always welcome to grief's ugly events of denial, anger, and depression.

Unfortunately for us today, the notion of private, intimate grief is now going the way of mourning clothes. In exchange, we have an increasingly public grief. Social media abolishes distance, bringing us artificially close to tragic events and those who suffer them. What would have once been private sorrow is now publicly mediated, even publicly scrutinized (especially for our celebrities), and this has perhaps been no more evident than in the recent case of Rick Warren after the tragic death of his son.

Although we may be grateful for Rick Warren's public commitment to keeping faith on Twitter, I'm just not so sure that our social media can handle the messy complexity of grief. Not only does social media tend to promote artificiality, but media is inherently impatient, predatory for today's breaking stories. Grief, on the other hand, requires a slow healing and cannot be rushed. It is a marathon, not a sprint, and those who grieve need friends willing to lag behind—in yesterday's news.

Our media is also predisposed to shareable sound bites, but grief by contrast, can be inarticulate, especially when we're mad. We can't always make sense when we grieve. In the book that he wrote after his wife's death, Lewis recognizes the provisional disabilities of bereavement, and in rereading his own words of an earlier chapter, he admits, "They appall me." He had portrayed God as a Cosmic Sadist, rejected the doctrine of his goodness. But later, he calls those words "no so much the expression of thought as of hatred . . . the pleasure of hitting back."

In A Grief Observed, C.S. Lewis travels the road of grief. He calls it a "long valley, a winding valley where any bend may reveal a totally new landscape." No one vista conveys the entire scene, and we don't really move on from grief as much as discover new perspectives. Lament is the biblical language that we're supposed to learn on route. The Book of Job, the Book of Lamentations, and the Psalms of lament all teach us that it is possible to simultaneously attest to life's caprice and to affirm God's sovereignty, to say that the world is cruel as well as to proclaim that God is good. Lament affirms these cruel paradoxes of earthly existence, and that's why grieving can't be done well on social media, which may tempt us to prematurely resolve dissonance and avoid what is messy and hard.

We don't have to deny the senseless horror of tragedy in order to defend God's goodness. Lament can actually teach us to call death by its rightful name: enemy. And here is something unexpectedly beautiful that happens when we learn to cry and cry out, as Ellen Davis said in Getting Involved with God:

When you lament in good faith, opening yourself to God honestly and fully—no matter what you have to say—then you are beginning to clear the way for praise.

News

A New Creation Story

Why do more homeschoolers want evolution in their textbooks?

Christian homeschool science textbooks have long taught young earth creationism (YEC) almost exclusively. But observers say a growing number of parents want texts that also teach evolution.

"Homeschooling has broadened so much, and now includes many Christian groups who have never adopted [YEC]," said homeschool pioneer Susan Wise Bauer, a history professor at Virginia's College of William and Mary. "Also, there are a lot of younger evangelicals who have come to a different way of understanding Genesis, while still holding [on to their] evangelical roots."

Numbers on the trend are hard to pin down. Still, BioLogos president Deborah Haarsma says that it's "fairly common" for homeschooling families to request materials from her organization, which promotes theistic evolution. Some of these parents still believe in a young earth, says program director Kathryn Applegate, but they want their children exposed to different perspectives.

Doug Hayworth, coordinator of homeschool science resources for the American Scientific Affiliation, agrees. Inquiries to his Christian association reveal not a wave of old-earth converts, but instead frustrated young-earth believers who believe that "the standard [YEC] curricula … are very strident," said Hayworth, who homeschools. "They're looking for some advice."

Curricula for such families have been hard to find, said Wise Bauer. "I am consistently frustrated when evaluating resources. There really isn't much."

Sonlight Curriculum is an exception. It offers a diversity of homeschool curricula that allow parents to teach various theories of origins. "The YEC position is strong and ingrained in the homeschool movement," said Sonlight president Sarita Holzmann, who homeschools her children and believes in a young earth. "That might be to our detriment." She says students need to be able to evaluate different positions.

BJU Press, one of the largest providers of Christian homeschooling resources, said demand for its YEC curriculum remains strong—and it already includes other viewpoints. "We don't hedge on [YEC] at all," said Brad Batdorf, who supervises authors of 7th to 12th grade curriculum. "We talk about other views … [and] even go so far as to give some scriptures they use. But then we present what we feel is the strongest, most supportable position."

Brian Collins, Bible integration assistant for BJU Press, acknowledges the "greater diversity" among evangelicals on origins, and said the publisher stays current as scientific discussion has moved from the age of the earth to newer topics such as human genomics. "We address changes in those fields and the proper Christian response to that," he said.

"It's important for Christian young people to know what they're going to be exposed to in college and universities," said Batdorf. "They'll need to defend their faith and give an answer."

Two professors at Bryan College, a CCCU school where 27 percent of incoming students are homeschooled, agree that curriculum should teach all viewpoints.

"Many homeschool parents contact me or show up at my office and quietly say, 'Is there anything besides [YEC]?' " said Kenneth Turner, a theology professor at the traditionally YEC college who homeschools.

With a recent grant from BioLogos, Turner and colleague Brian Eisenback, a biology professor, are writing a textbook that discusses the history of the science of origins, as well as different positions scientists have taken on Genesis and origins. They will include material on YEC, evolutionary creationism, intelligent design, and atheistic evolution.

A similar BioLogos project is underway at Wheaton College, where five professors are working on a textbook covering the current scientific consensus on origins.

Sonlight cofounder John Holzmann believes the books will find a market of homeschooling parents who perhaps aren't shifting views so much as becoming more polarized and public with their previously hidden positions. "At this point there is more 'coming out,' if you will."

Comment Magazine

A splendid theme-issue on persuasion.

Books & Culture April 29, 2013

A splendid theme-issue on persuasion.

Pastors

Holy Kiss

Some unlikely teachers taught me the power of touch.

Leadership Journal April 29, 2013

Editor's note: this is an excerpt from Tony's recent book Neighbors and Wise Men (Thomas Nelson, 2012).

Ani took two quick strides and he was standing nearly against me. This was not the first time I would be startled by the scant size of the Albanian spatial bubble. He took my hand in his. He face shone in the early evening light with a huge smile and sparkling eyes. His head bobbled slightly as he talked. He spun several sentences of what sounded only of gibberish to my unseasoned American ears.

Then it happened.

Startling, to say the least.

If you had asked, I would have said that it was impossible for Ani and me to stand any closer.

I was wrong. So very wrong.

Gripping my hand and forearm, Ani pulled me closer. Then he pulled me closer still. He was not a large man, but I could not deny his strength. Then, with celebrative force, he kissed me square on the cheek. Remembering it now, my memories move in slow motion. He slowly released, pulling away only so slightly. I can imagine the look on my face. In shock, I watched his face pass in front of mine, only millimeters separating our noses, mouths, and chins. His face was all smile and bobble. Then he kissed my other cheek, just as hospitably as he did the first.

Only then did he step away. There was still moisture on the soft center of each of my cheeks.

That night, as I lay in the dark on my divan-style bed, staring at the ceiling, I could still feel the shape of his lips on each cheek.

This was one of my first experiences with one of my favorite men I have ever known.

Stolen

Touch was stolen from me.

It was stolen from me by the American story. It was stolen from me by our puritanical religious roots, and by an entertainment culture that turns affections into sensuality. It was stolen from me by a thousand church scandals that have left pastors afraid to even talk to a parishioner behind closed doors. And it has been stolen from me by a generation that calls all same-gender affection into question.

Society and religion have bedded together to relegate touch to either the sexual or the inappropriate, with little in between.

Two close friends

I had only been in country for a few months when I met Ilir and Genci. They had been best friends since childhood, and I imagine they will be for decades to come. That is the Albanian way.

They were a rugged duo from a small, outlying city. When I say rugged, I really mean rough, even a bit scary. When I first saw them in the dim corridor of their dormitory, I must admit I was instinctually on my guard. They both had dark eyes and black hair with weathered skin. Ilir was the slighter of the two, thin, with sunken cheeks and narrow eyes. Genci was broad. He had crazy hair and thick beard growth. Both wore leather coats covered with creases and cracks.

My first impression, judging them as hoodlums, was not without some merit. A few weeks after meeting them, I saw Ilir on Albanian national television. One of the charming practices of the Albanian police at the time was to place people suspected of crime in publicly displayed lineups. My guess is that the shame was used as a crime deterrent.

Ilir was never convicted; I don't know if he was even charged.

That first day, the day we became friends, I was just wandering through their dormitory. It was an average sort of day for me during those first months. My time was spent mostly with students. I was a young missionary, simply trying to make friends and searching for anyone who might want to talk about Jesus.

As soon as Ilir and Genci saw me, they erupted in hospitality. They dragged me from the hallway through their door. It was a typical room on the Tirana campus. It was small, no larger than a prison cell. There was one missing pane in their window, crudely replaced by a piece of cardboard. A few other panes were cracked. Floor and walls were simple concrete. A single bare bulb suspended from a serpentine wire rocked in the middle of the room. A few pictures, pilfered from Western magazines, clung to the walls above their beds on either side. I guessed these pages had been taken from an airline magazine.

As was typical, the beds were the only things to sit on. A thin mattress lay across a metal hammock pulled taut across an iron frame. I dropped into the middle of the hammock with my shoulder blades and head against the chalky wall.

Ilir offered me a drink of Fanta from a plastic bottle. I said thank you but that I was fine.

He and Genci plopped onto the bed. They took a place on either side of me, dipping the metal hammock even lower. The other bed was only a meter away and lay empty, but they seemed more content to sit all together, the droop of the bed ensuring that we would remain bosom close.

I was still not sure what to make of these scruffy men. I wasn't sure I wanted them this close, their pungent aroma mixing with mine. By all indications, they could not have been more comfortable. Clearly they wanted to talk. I am not saying that there was any reason for concern, but I also knew that I was not going to do anything to upset them. I smiled to either side and tried to fully receive their physical offer of friendship.

After a while I asked if I could read them something about Jesus. They seemed unconcerned about the historical rift between their faith and mine. They seemed happy to just be together. So, I pulled out a small book.

I opened the pages.

Then, the most surprising thing happened.

Instinctively, Genci, sitting on my left, wrapped his arms around my arm, like a child, and laid his head upon my shoulder. His crazy hair brushed my chin and ear. He was ready to listen to whatever I might want to share.

At first Ilir scooted away a bit. I thought for a second that he might be the more reserved of the two.

I was wrong.

After judging the distance, Ilir leaned over, sliding his torso under my right arm and placing his head square in the middle of my chest. He placed his right hand carefully on my belly. He had secured the best view possible of my little book. As I read, he could feel the vibration of my voice through my chest. He could feel my lungs rise and contract.

And there we sat for the better part of the afternoon. We talked about Jesus. We talked about family. They shared with me their story. They told me about their dreams.

A gospel of touch

That year I started to read my Bible in a new way. I started to see touch everywhere, particularly in the Gospels: fathers embracing sons, secretive contact by a peasant woman, a disciple leaning on Jesus' bosom, hands washing and drying feet, heads anointed with oil, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side."

Could it be that touch has more to do with the way of Jesus than what I had been taught?

When Jesus touched the leper, it transmitted the gospel of healing; I had known that since I was a boy.

But was the touch itself also a part of the gospel?

I began to see the leper story differently. The very act of touching was as much a miracle as the cleansing of his disease. Touch connected Jesus to the leper. Touch transmitted and affirmed humanity. Touch said, "You are not alone." Touch declared the leper's co-equality with all God-image beings. Ultimately, the touch of the Messiah erased a lifetime of isolation and rejection and a sentence to society's margins. Touch validated. Touch is love.

A family meal

It has been so many years since I left that corner of the Muslim world, but I carry still the gift of my Albanian father, those scruffy friends, and my Middle Eastern messiah, who tactilely transmitted love.

These days, our faith family gathers for dinner every Sunday evening. As many as 15 of us cram around our dining room table to share the meal called Agape. The food is always seasonal and delicious. Candles provide the light. The conversation lingers for hours.

Inevitably, if you look over, you will see Bobbin, all pierced and opinionated, sitting to my left. More often than not, he will have his arm around me or mine around him.

As I sit and enjoy Bobbin and our faith family all around, my mind starts to drift. There is a fear that rises up within me. I fear that touch, redeeming and healing touch, has just simply been lost.

Touch is love

Ironically, churches today seem to be driving themselves mad to compete with television, movies, and the Internet: supercharged sound systems, better bands, more charismatic characters. However, there are some things that the Web has not even come close to duplicating: a comforting touch on the shoulder, a sympathetic squeeze of the hand, a reassuring hug.

The very act of touching is a miracle. Touch connects us to the other. Touch transmits and affirms humanity. Touch welcomes. Touch says, "You are not alone." Touch declares the other's co-equality with all God-image beings. Ultimately, the holy touch of godly people can erase a lifetime of isolation, rejection, and daily sentencing to society's margins. Touch validates. Touch is love.

Tony "The Beat Poet" Kriz is a teacher and speaker on faith and culture. His most recent book is Neighbors and Wise Men: Sacred Encounters in a Portland Pub and Other Unexpected Places (Thomas Nelson, 2012).

Copyright © 2013 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

Church 2.0

The 21st-century church needs a landing place for “spiritual immigrants.”

Leadership Journal April 29, 2013

From the outside, it's easy to mistake Soulation.org as an apologetics blog. Some of this is self-inflicted; Dale & Jonalyn Fincher, the site's cofounders, often describe themselves as apologists. To be honest, I can't blame them. "Apologetics" is a label the broader faith community will accept. And (double bonus), it puts Dale in the same category as one of his heroes, C.S. Lewis.

But let's not judge this blog by its cover. It's way more than just a run-of-the-mill "convert the skeptics" site. If you ask me, Dale & Jonalyn have created a 21st-century church. They might take issue with that label, but they do agree with another label that struck me when I hung out with them in January: A spiritual Ellis Island. A place that welcomes spiritual immigrants.

Dale pointed out in our conversation that there's "so much confusion over what a 'church' is today." I think he's right. In the Winter 2013 issue of Leadership Journal I wrote about my friend Tim Schuster, pastor and co-founder of the innovative Midtown Church. Tim observed that when we say "church planting" what we often mean is "starting a worship service." Admittedly Soulation pushes—hard—on the boundaries of what we might think of as church, and, for good measure, pushes some serious buttons, too. (You thought GLBT issues were tough? Try counseling Christians with bondage fetishes.)

I imagine members of the earliest churches would have a hard time recognizing their 20th-century great, great grandchildren as "church." Sound systems? Movies? Chairs even! So I'm not surprised if 20th-century church folk might have a hard time recognizing the beta versions of 21st-century church. The Millennials among us might call this Church 2.0.

A church without walls—and without worship

The terms "ministry" and "parachurch" have become so broad as to be almost meaningless catch-all terms (sort of like, well, "church"). I love Tim Schuster's implicit challenge for ministers to look beyond worship services as we seek to understand what church really is. Indulge me for a moment as I geek out on a critical but underappreciated role of church that we've conveniently pushed into the catch-all ministry.

I think any basic, working definition of church must include the presence of a supportive, trustworthy ministry leader providing guidance and counsel through the rocky process of spiritual formation. While some non-negotiables of church such as baptism and the Lord's Supper aren't easily transferable to an online platform, if forging disciples through the fire of spiritual crisis isn't included in our definition of church, what is?

In traditional church paradigms, there is an asymmetry of power and information, even when we have best intentions in how we approach spiritual counseling and formation. I am not anonymous to the ministry leader (save perhaps in the case of contemporary Catholic confessionals). The ministry leader holds the imprimatur of power and authority. And there is a specific geographic place in which I will "be received" (whether I'm receiving comfort or castigation).

Look behind the cover of "apologetics" and it becomes clear that the primary purpose of Soulation is to provide a contemporized function for spiritual formation. They have done this by flipping the traditional church paradigm of spiritual counseling and formation on its head. Soulation accomplishes this by using chat rooms, an on-line capability more often associated with porn sites than ministries. They call their chat feature "Ask Live," made by appointment.

At Soulation, I hold the power, not the ministry leader. I decide if the discussion around my spiritual crisis is public, via Soulation's My Faith Hurdle—or if it's private, via Ask Live. I don't have to worry about whether the ministry leader will breach "pastor confidentiality," because I decide if I'll "attend" Soulation under my real name or an anonymous handle. And the "ministry leader"—one of the (currently) 18 spiritual advisers who form the backbone of the Soulation spiritual formation team—have no control. They will be named if I want them to be. Their thoughts and responses to me will be made public if I want them to be. Of course they control what they say—just not to whom they say or who else gets to see it.

This isn't the only "flip" compared to a more traditional church model. As Dale points out, "It changes the 'church' approach from passive (sitting in pews hearing the few) to active (all members of the body participating if they wish to). And the added advantage is that others get to listen in to hear their question batted around even if they never voiced it. This pulls people out of the shadows."

Obedience, meet permission

In his book You Lost Me, David Kinnaman makes a brief, but powerful, point. Many of yesterday's church leaders grew up in an "obedience model." It's a keen insight. By the way, David doesn't mean that the pastors or church leaders had to obey. They were obeyed—and my attendance at church was assumed. Without question there will be no questions!

But the world's gone all topsy-turvy since those days, hasn't it? We now live in a world grown permissive, both literally and figuratively. My work keeps me at the intersection of faith and business development, which, in turn, brings me into contact with hundreds of pastors and ministry leaders. Most pastors are having a hard time finding their way, because the compasses designed for an obedience world (i.e., they will come to us!) don't work in a permissive world (i.e., will they come to us?). A precious few, like the Finchers, demonstrate acumen in navigating the permissive world.

I wasn't surprised that David Kinnaman invited Jonalyn to be one of the speakers on part of the You Lost Me LIVE tour. It was there that I first met Jonalyn and Dale. But I really got to know them when they let me stay in their home.

Talking theology and spiritual formation for two days with them was mostly exhilarating, but also a bit exhausting. But learning about their model—how it likely represents part of the church of the future—was fascinating. Soulation represents a very safe, permissively anonymous "way station" for the churched, formerly churched and unchurched alike as they confront the hurdles that keep them from being fully present. The Finchers hope all of Soulation's audience will come to (or come back to) church—but that doesn't necessarily mean "20th-century church."

Dale mentioned to me, "We think the 'local church' as an organization is misapplied in biblical terms. Coming to Jesus, growing with him in community (online or physically) places you in the Church even if you don't attend a local assembly regularly. Church 2.0 requires this. It's something most people are not talking about, or thinking about, and it's hurting the larger effort of helping the group of Millennials that David Kinnaman calls "Exiles" in You Lost Me. If we can't agree that Soulation represents church itself, I sincerely hope we will all agree Soulation and its future progeny are the types of spiritual Ellis Islands the coming generations will need and expect as they decide whether to engage in the "country" we might call the church as a body.

Chris Kopka is helping launch an integrated business/ministry model around faith and finances with Brightpeak Financial. This is the first of a three part article by Chris on "Church 2.0." Stay tuned to Leadership Journal for Chris's companion pieces.

Copyright © 2013 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

Loving Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

How do we condemn evil while loving evil people?

Leadership Journal April 27, 2013

On my way to work yesterday, I was disturbed. As I scanned the radio stations, more than once I heard calls to “round up the terrorists,” and to “send those foreigners home,” or worse yet, to “eradicate the Muslim threat.”

While looking for distracting music, I was confronted with destructive hatred.

I’m observing two distinct and unhelpful reactions to the apparent Jihadist terrorism that has struck my city. The first is the xenophobic, racial, and even religious hatred of my Muslim neighbors. The other is the willful ignorance of the religious connection to these terrorists acts—the blind assumption that all religions are created equal. Neither is good. Neither is truthful. And more importantly, neither is Christ-like.

It is obvious to the liberal mind that hatred of our Muslim neighbors is wrong. It is not obvious to the liberal mind that one can observe what is immoral in one religion without hating all of its people, being a racist, a bigot, or a backwards fundamentalist—a favorite straw man of our time. This is why the liberal mind (and the conservative mind, for that matter) must experience a change of mind. Christians must have Christian minds.

So how are we to think about our Muslim neighbors? About Islam? Even about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? 

Christians Should Believe Christianity is Right

To quote Tim Keller, “It is no narrower to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions is right.” It just won’t work to say, “All religions, faiths, and belief systems are equally valid, and if you don’t agree you’re a bigot.” The idea falls in on itself because, in making a claim that exclusivity is wrong, you’re excluding the exclusivist. Darn that logic, ruining all our fun.

Christians do, in fact, believe that Christianity is right. And by the way, not believing Christianity is right is not Christian love. Jesus claimed to be the Savior of the world. If he is who he claimed to be (and Christians believe he is) then not proclaiming that news to the whole world is very unloving. Our silence is preventing them from obtaining the cure to what is broken within them and us. What kind of love is that? In the name of not wanting to offend anyone we implicitly condemn everyone. I’m glad that Jesus didn’t love me like that.

Christians Believe Loving our Neighbor is Right.

If Christians really believe Christianity is right, then we’ll be fiercely committed to Christ, who commanded us to love our neighbor. How did Jesus interact with those of different religions? Ask the woman at the well. She was a Samaritan. Ask the Roman official. He was a pagan. Did Jesus have an interfaith worship service, affirming the equality of their own paths to God? No. Did he picket them, getting the disciples to stir up racial or national hatred against them? No.

Jesus demonstrated his unique, exclusive grace by talking with them, loving them, and changing their lives. If our cultural values have drifted so far as to call this behavior hateful, then go ahead and call me hateful. I’ll be glad to be in the same camp as Jesus. Hopefully all Christians would be. 

We should believe in sin. 

We shouldn’t wring our hands and have to qualify our hatred of evil. Jesus didn’t. When we see evil in the world, call it evil. When we see evil in the church, call it evil. When we see evil in other religions, call it evil. If Christians, who are supposed to know Truth, cannot identify evil, we merely demonstrate that we are wrong, ignorant, or complicit with the evil we won’t name. This does the world no favors. The ubiquity of evil is part of the gospel. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection make precisely no sense whatsoever if evil is not real, horrible, and everywhere.

But of course, evil is real, horrible, and everywhere. That’s the problem with it. The biblical word for this problem is sin. The horror of sin contrasts the wonder of Jesus’ grace. If we refuse to see the horror, then we’ll miss the wonder. If we don’t help the world see the horror, then we can rest assured they’ll miss the wonder as well. 

We should believe in grace. 

After we name the evil, we must keep talking. Part of the problem with the culture war was that it went about loudly labeling what was wrong but only quietly proclaiming what was right. If we believe Christianity is right then we will invite everyone everywhere (including our Muslim neighbors whom we love) to experience the grace extended to humanity by Jesus Christ.

This is not a glib, cheap invitation, by the way. Grace is a costly, bloody thing. The cycle of violence and hatred stops at the cross because God’s justice was poured out on his innocent Son for a guilty humanity. If God has done this for a race like ours, then it shows that we are both totally guilty in our sin and unimaginably loved in Christ’s grace.

Christians aren’t better than Muslims. Christians aren’t better than Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. We all share in the same fallenness. We must love them like Christ. We must talk to them like Christ. We must invite them to Christ.

But doing all of that requires that we first start thinking like Christ.

Adam Mabry is the lead pastor of Aletheia, a church in Boston, Massachusetts.

The 2013 Baseball Season

Keep an eye on bargain-hunting teams.

Books & Culture April 26, 2013

Editor’s Note: This is the second installment of Michael Stevens’ two-part piece celebrating the start of a new baseball season, Last week, Michael looked at two exceptionally interesting slices of baseball history, both with resonance beyond the field of play. This week, he looks ahead, speculating on how the 2013 season will unfold.

Ah, the 2013 season—130 years after the summer of beer and whiskey flowing in the rickety American Association ballparks, and 80 years since that summer when Satchel Paige showed up in Bismarck and an integrated team beat all comers on the high plains. In some ways, the game hasn’t changed that much, despite the passage of time. In other ways, it’s changed profoundly.

A lot of the talk about baseball nowadays focuses on giant salaries and long-term contracts. But what about bargain-hunting: teams that get the most from relatively modest investments? I’ll start out at the furthest reach from my own sphere of baseball knowledge and interest, the NL West. The Padres seem to be the logical choice to begin with, since they’ve been in bargain mode for many years, as their $67 million total payroll attests. Among the ineligible players for our bargain-hunt, we find Carlos Quentin (wait, when did he leave the White Sox?) at $9.5 million, Huston Street (wait again, isn’t he still the A’s closer?) at a cool $7 million, and, down the ladder a bit, Jason Marquis (wait, has he now pitched for every major league team—twice?!) at $3 million. Alas, San Diego has no clear candidates for low-budget star, just several guys on the DL, and Jedd Gyorko, whose name is cool and who is the only player on the roster at the absolute league minimum of $490,000 (I know, if kind of stretches our usual sense of the term “minimum,” doesn’t it?). The Padres seem to be less bargain-gifted than simply impoverished. Let’s move to Colorado, where the Rockies sport a modest $71 M total, with predictable payout for the stars of the team: Helton makes about $6 M, Gonzalez $8 M, Tulowitzki $10 M. But I like Jon Garland bringing a veteran arm (euphemism for 87 mph fastball?) to the team for a mere $500,000, and for just a thousand dollars less, a backup shortstop with a medieval name like Reid Brignac. The Rockies have potential this year—keep an eye on them! Arizona has a quirky layout to its salary chart—catcher Miguel Montero is the highest paid player at $10 M? Eric Chavez is still worth $3 m. as a back-up third sacker? That’s all a bit shaky, but I like first baseman Paul Goldschmidt at a mere half a million, and I think this team will compete into September. The Dodgers have now matched the Yankees with four players over $20 M, but the illogic of Ted Lilly making more than Clayton Kershaw (though neither is hurting, as both are well over $10 M) will be a strike against this overpriced club. The real trouble is that they have only a handful of guys under a million a year, and Paco Rodriguez and Tim Federowicz are just not adequate bargain-boons. The Dodgers fade under media and fan pressure in the heat of August, despite the presence of the hero and exemplar of my high school baseball days, Don Mattingly, at the helm. What are you doing out there, Donnie Baseball? Last but surely not least come the Giants, who will win this division with Spartan efficiency and heartlessness—but it won’t be the three starting pitchers at $20 M and above (Lincecum, Cain and Zito, can you spare a dime?), but rather the shrewd work at the other end of the pay scale, with quality pitcher Madison Baumgarner just under a million, and starting infielders Brandon Crawford and Brandon Belt right around $500,000 each. That’s baseball bargain brilliance, and that means late October baseball for San Fran.

In the NL Central, the Brewers don’t look good on the bargain front; at the top, we find that Ryan Braun makes less than Rickie Weeks (!), and below the million-dollar mark, the best possibility is Yuniesky Betancourt at $900,000. The Brewers star is on the wane, it would appear, unless catcher Martin Maldonado ($494,000) hits like a young Candy Maldonado! The Pirates are all screwed up in this regard, with their lowly $66 M payroll nevertheless not well-crafted for this bargain-hunt. How is the rusty-kneed former Tiger struggler Brandon Inge making over a million dollars? The bottom of the payroll doesn’t register on the super-bargain meter at all, though if Chase D’Arnaud gets off the DL, we at least can try that “medieval-sounding name” ploy again. Now what of the Cubs, run by former wunderkind Red Sox GM Theo Epstein? Could $104 M be spent more strangely? Why do the aged Alfonso Soriano, who had his best season as a rookie with the Yankees, and former middling D’Backs/Tigers/Nationals pitcher Edwin Jackson, together consume almost a third of this team’s payroll (earning $19 M and $13 M respectively). Likely not. The Cardinals also have an apparent bargain-phobia, since $50 M of their payroll goes to four sets of aged knees, in Matt Holliday, Yadier Molina, Carlos Beltran, and Rafael Furcal. But the Cards also feature quality contributors John Jay and Daniel Descalso at around $500,000 each, and that could get them a run at the division in the last two weeks of the season. In fact, though I like the way the Reds’ payroll seems equable and sensible—Joey Votto makes the most, then Bronson Arroyo, then Brandon Phillips, etc., their mid-range salaries just above the million dollar mark hurt their bargain-hunting status. If they’d only dropped Jack Hannahan and Manny Parra below that ‘line of demarcation,’ instead of leaving them at exactly $1 M, things might have been different. Only the emergence of bottom of the salary barrel J.J. Hoover on the mound could shore up the bargain-status here, so I see the Reds stumbling down the stretch, with the Cardinals sniffing blood and taking the division on the final day.

The NL East has some surprisingly low team payrolls (the Mets have truly cleaned house, at a slim $73 M, and the Marlins barely register a pulse at $42 M). The Phillies are way ahead of the pack, at $158 M, and they match the Giants with three starting pitchers above $20 M (Lee, Hamels, Halladay); toss in slugger Ryan Howard to boot, right at $20 M. But the real strength for this team is in the lower ranks, where quality outfielders John Mayberry and Ben Revere are both around the $500,000, and Phillipe Aumont gives, you guessed it, the French medieval naming flair which has emerged as an X-factor in all these machinations. The Phillies will compete for the divisional crown right into early October. The Marlins tantalize the bargain-minded soul for a moment, with their young slugger Giancarlo Stanton making only a bit more than $500,000, and a couple of over-the-hill but possibly effective bats in Austin Kearns and Casey Kotchman making $700,000 each. This team has bargain-creds! But the problems on the top of the pay list create a black hole swallowing up the validity of my theory, because if pitcher Ricky Nolasco makes more than the next 7 players on the payroll combined, economic confusion appears to have descended. The Marlins finish a distant fifth. I got a look at the Mets payroll, and I thought maybe a healthy paradigm was at work—young star David Wright at around $10 M and worth it, and then a modest set of paychecks, including a full two-thirds of the team, with several strong contributors, below the million dollar mark. But wait! I shake out the fold in the paper and realize that the injured (again) Johan Santana’s almost $25,000,000 salary is looming. That messes up everything—the Mets flirt with .500 ball throughout the season, barring the dynamic emergence of Jeurys Familia as medieval name factor and bullpen presence. What of the Washington Nationals? They have salary scale intrigue in play, but is it bargain-valid? Well, Stephen Strasburg is the sixth highest paid pitcher—I don’t mean in the league, I mean on his own team! And at $3,900,000, he makes almost twice as much as Bryce Harper! They get some bargain-power with the scrappy Steve Lombardozzi at around $500,000, but it might not be enough. The heart can feel the tug of the Nationals, but the calculator doesn’t lie—and it tells us that Jayson Werth is making more than Albert Pujols and Robinson Cano this year, which gives a bad vibe. Then there’s the Braves, to drive the stake home. The Upton brothers bring home over $20 M combined, but they seem worth it so far this year, both performance-wise and as a “feel good” fraternal story. It’s unclear why former Tigers catcher Gerald Laird, who epitomizes the .230 hitting back-up catcher persona, makes $1.5 M a year, but the Braves have some starting infielders and lots of the bullpen well under the million-dollar mark, and that bodes well on the bargain-scale, so I pick them to take the division with the Nationals and Phillies pushing in as wildcards.

The American League East is not usually a place to look for bargain-minded commerce, with the Yankees, Red Sox, and the new spendthrift Blue Jays combining for almost $500 M in payroll. The Yankees alone are a study in outlandishness and ill fortune—the team started the season with over $90 M worth of players on the disabled list, which amount eclipses the entire payroll of more than half the teams in the league! They have 11 players who make over $10 M, while their divisional rival Tampa Bay has none. To add insult to injury, the Yankees spring training facility in Tampa often draws more fans for their exhibition games than the Rays draw, in their own home city, for their regular season games. But the real reason the Yankees will be competitive down the stretch is the bargain-surprises among the six-digit earners on the rosters: infielder Jayson Nix at $900,000, with serviceable infielder Eduardo Nunez and starting catcher Francisco Cervelli just above $500,000. Don’t be surprised if the Yankees hang around, even if all their $15 M and up superstars are never on the field at the same time. The Red Sox have always had odd spending habits—David Ortiz makes $14.5 M at what appears to be 50 years of age? Ryan Dempster makes over $13 M?! Why? But the Sox have a lot of strong mid-range salary players , and the bargain-factor is at work in the rising young star Jackie Bradley, Jr. making the roster at the league minimum. Now, will Mike Carp’s $508,500 be the tipping factor to keep Boston in the race past the All-Star Break? And what of new big spender on the block Toronto, who has been building around bona-fide stars Jose Bautista ($14 M) and Edwin Encarnacion ($8 M) with high-profile and high-priced replacement parts (as much as we love R.A. Dickey’s story, $5 M for a forty-ish knuckleballer?). But the lower-priced pieces are more intriguing—Henry Blanco at $750,000, likely backing up the pop-in-the-bat young catcher J.P. Arencibia ($505,600), with a lot of the bullpen in the same range. Toronto is one medieval-sounding name from a competitive push—can Esmil Rogers be that X-factor, with the $500,000 price-tag and noble Christian name? Baltimore surprised everyone with their playoff run last year, though the fact that Nick Markakis makes $5 M more than anyone else on the team seems counter-intuitive and a strike against. Yet, the presence of bargains below the million-dollar line, such as powerful catcher Taylor Teagarden at $650,000 and hot-shot young third baseman Manny Machado below $500,000, suggests that the Orioles deserve to linger in the hunt right to the end. Then there’s Tampa Bay, the pauper of the division, yet always competitive, with strong pitching and timely hitting, the bread and butter of baseball. The payroll looks pretty balanced, with the Cy Young-winning ace David Price at a team-leading $10 M, then a quickly descending scale. On the bargain end, the Rays are well-arrayed, with pinch-hit power from Shelley Duncan ($550,000), solid starting pitching from Jeremy Hellickson ($503,000), and speed in the outfield with Desmond Jennings ($501,000). I say the Rays hang around and torment either the Yankees or the Red Sox with a late-season series sweep that proves pivotal. They almost get there, at least finding satisfaction as the spoiler.

The AL Central is where I lodge my day-to-day baseball attention, as a transplanted Yankee fan now situated for many years in Michigan, listening almost daily to the Tigers radio broadcast. The Tigers’ payroll has steadily increased over the past few years as the team has remained competitive but not yet pushed all the way to the promised land of a championship. It’s hard to argue with the payout to the Tigers three $20 M and up players, perennial MVP candidates Prince Fielder, Miguel Cabrera, and Justin Verlander. At the other end of the spectrum, most of the Tigers current bullpen is around the $500,000 mark, inexperienced and inexpensive—so sometimes the bargain can also be the torment. But I like starting left fielder Andy Dirks at a slender $505,000, and the Tigers should make a strong push for the divisional crown baseball, but it won’t be easy. The White Sox have all their big money in starting pitching (possibly problematic, with Jake Peavy and John Danks combining for over $30 M) and power hitting (Dunn, Konerko, and Rios combine for $40 M, which is steep, but they’re a strong middle of the order). Down below the line, I like the bargain-minded presence of Tyler Flowers, a young catcher strong of arm and bat ($510,000) and rising star pitcher Chris Sale, sneaking in at $850,000. This is a team to chase the Tigers and give them fits right through the dog days of summer. Speaking of tormenting the Tigers, the Minnesota Twins have fulfilled that role for several years now, and even with spending cuts and a depleted pitching staff (this is a team with well over 50 percent of the payroll invested in the number three, four, and five hitters—Mauer, Morneau, Willingham), the Twins understand the bargain game well. They have four or five regulars below $500,000, but the upside on a slick shortstop like Pedro Florimon, or a rookie outfield hawk like Aaron Hicks, is pretty high. The Twins bargain-quotient is enough to say they compete and heckle the divisional leaders through August. The Indians could do the same, though the two highest-paid position players, Nick Swisher ($11 M) and Michael Bourn ($7 M) are brand new to the team and maybe odd, anxious acquisitions. It’s below the line that this team looks good, possibly competitive, with low-budget strength in the bullpen (Vinnie Pestano) and solid young infielders (Jason Kipnis, Lonnie Chisenhall) all around $500,000. I just don’t like the dependence on the strong bullpen and the new power hitters to make things go. But I do like Kansas City’s new guys, these two live arms at the top of their rotation and their payroll, and though Ervin Santana and James Shields combine for almost $25 M, nearly one-third of the team’s payroll, still their ‘meat of the order’ hitters average about $8 M each, and the lower end has some $500,000 steals, solid starters like Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, and speedy outfielder Jarrod Dyson. I like the Royals to push the Tigers and White Sox, to ride these new aces and their cohesive young lineup, right into the tangles of September, something that hasn’t happened in Kansas City since the George Brett days. But the Tigers take the division.

Now the AL West, where last year everything seemed upside down, as the low-budget A’s eclipsed the big budget Rangers and bigger budget Angels for a stunning divisional crown. Perennial struggler Seattle is in the midst of all this, convoluting the scene, and now the Houston Astros have been dropped into the midst of the brouhaha, where they are expected to lose 100 games or more and to inflate the win totals of their divisional rivals (possibly skewing the wildcard hunt). A glance at Houston’s roster and payroll shows a dire state of affairs—the whole team makes less than A-Rod by himself, and three-fourths of the lineup is near the league minimum. Wait, won’t that allow a lot of space for the bargain-minded approach to find success? Well, let’s just say that Carlos Pena is a decent DH, Ronny Cedeno a serviceable shortstop, and Rick Ankiel among the best outfielders that used to be a scintillating starting pitcher—but I don’t recognize another name on the roster. Lots of room for growth, but this is a team that, in the first 6 games of the year, had something like 5 walks and 60 strikeouts as a lineup. There will be a learning curve that even the bargain-method can’t soften. Seattle, of course, has a top-level ace in Felix Hernandez, but he’s kind of on an island, making more than twice as much as the next highest paid player, and when the next few names are Franklin Guitierrez, Mike Morse, and Hisashi Iwakuma, there might be some gaps. At the lower end of the scale, the Mariners have youthful pop in infielders Kyle Seager and Justin Smoak (both around that $500,000 mark), and so I say they sweep one division rival at a crucial moment in late August and do their part to tip the scale. Oh yeah, and King Felix wins 18 and strikes out 220. Think Steve Carlton on the early 1970s Phillies. Oakland, of course, ruled baseball in the early 1970s as the powerhouse franchise, but now they play an underdog role that invites a bargain-hunting scrutiny, to figure out how they do it. They have moderate money spread out at the top of pay-scale—no one over $10 M, but lots of players in the low millions. Then, below the line, they get tremendous production from players like Josh Reddick (the bane of all Tiger fans after last year’s playoff series) and Josh Donaldson. Several young pitchers also dwell at this $500,000 mark, both starters and relievers, and there is a low-risk, high-return model at work here. I don’t like this A’s team personally, but I like this model from the standpoint of productive frugality. One could bristle at Billy Beane’s Moneyball approach, but I think I’ve begun to see the light (or is it the darkness?!). Anyway, I say the A’s run last year was no fluke, and they disrupt the best-paid plans of the Angels and the Rangers. Let’s take the final two teams in that order. The Angels have just stolen the Rangers crown jewel in Josh Hamilton, and they now pay him $17.4 M, to go with Jared Weaver and Albert Pujols’ $16 M pricetags—that’s $50 M for two gifted but aging sluggers and a temperamental ace. A risk, but with some proven results. But why is Alberto Callaspo making over $4 M, and Joe Blanton over $6 M? The glutted middle of the payroll seems dodgy, though no one can gainsay the bargain-bonanza of having Mark Trumbo and Mike Trout, All-Star, and in the case of Trout superstar, talent in the heart of your order for around $500,000 each. Will the very disparity of Trout playing beside Hamilton, who makes 35 times more than him this year, cause discord or at least disorientation? When we look to Hamilton’s old team the Rangers, we see some top-heavy numbers—Adrian Beltre is an elite hitter, so $16 M is believable, but do Nelson Cruz and Lance Berkman warrant their $10 M pricetags? Is Joe Nathan still an elite closer, as the $8 M salary would suggest? Some questions float there, but a glance at the bargain rack shows that this team has some leverage, with the strong arm of Alexi Ogando and the solid stick of Mitch Moreland both at the $500,000 level—and if Tanner Scheppers can qualify as a medieval moniker, the Rangers might have the staying power all the way to October. My heart tells me the Rangers hold a steady course and take the division, with the A’s as wildcard (flipping last year back around).

So, to the post-season, when trade deadline moves, late season acquisitions, and expanded rosters will thwart the bargain-bin schema that we’ve thus far espoused—but no matter, the die will be cast by then! In the NL, the beasts of the East will dominate, with the Braves the divisional winner and overall best record, and the Phillies and Nationals locking up in a wildcard one-gamer that pits the $700,000 Zach Duke, in a spot start because of rotation depletion, against the almost $21 M Cole Hamels—but Duke wins the duel, and the Nationals prevail with a suicide squeeze laid down by Lombardozzi in the 9th, scoring the hirsute and reckless Bryce Harper. The Braves host the Cardinals in the Divisional Round, and the Braves no-name, moderately well-paid starting rotation humbles the Cardinals much better-paid and slightly better known, but not quite recovered from career-threatening injuries rotation, and in the year that the greatest Cardinal, Stan Musial, passed away, the Redbirds go down to valiant defeat.

Meanwhile, the Nationals’ visit to San Francisco gets a bit testy, with beanballs and warnings and little brother wanting to stand up to big brother, with the number 13 playing a role, as $13 M man Dan Haren of the Nats brushbacks $13 M man Hunter Pence of the Giants one last time in Game 7, then proceeds to strike him out for the complete game victory and the series. And, oh yeah, Stephen Strasburg finally got to pitch in the post-season, and struck out 25 in his two starts. So, the Nationals head to Atlanta, fired up at having defeated the defending champs, and ready to upend the rival Braves. Ian Desmond, Washington’s shortstop, slaps the ball around the whole series, proving his worth to the final cent of his $3.8 M. But alas, the Braves behemoth Jason Heyward leverages his $3.65 M worth of muscle into five home runs, including the deciding one in Game 5—and the Braves are World Series bound.

In the AL, Kansas City stuns the world by grabbing the last wildcard spot, and faces Oakland in a one-game playoff of budget-brilliant franchises—and K.C. pulls off the stunner, behind James Shields $11 M arm and Jarrod Dyson’s $506,000 legs, as he hits an inside-the-park home run off of the A’s Ryan Cook, whose $505,000 slider proves not quite enough. In the Divisional Round, the Royals head to Texas, while Detroit hosts Baltimore. The Orioles are fired up to win for the memory of Earl Weaver, the hot-headed but beloved skipper of the powerhouse Oriole teams of the ’60s and ’70s, who passed away early this year, soon after Stan the Man. But Prince Fielder and Miguel Cabrera will bring their $44 M worth of power hitting to all fields off any pitching, and the Baltimore staff, though cost effective (no pitcher makes more than $7 M), is nevertheless overmatched and battered. The Tigers sweep and earn a rest before the ALCS. And wonder of wonders, who will they be playing but their divisional foe, the divisional doormat for so many years, the upstart Royals, who ride their new aces and their consistent bats to an upset of the Rangers in five games, with the new $13 M in K.C., Ervin Santana, mowing down Texas’ own $13 M star Ian Kinsler four times in the final game.

Now, Detroit always has trouble with the Royals, even in years of inequity, and despite having almost double the payroll, Detroit has to dig deep, as Justin Verlander again struggles in the post-season and the Royals $8 M slugger Billy Butler roughs up the Tigers $8 M third starter Anibal Sanchez for 2 home runs to steal a game in Detroit. But the Tigers rise up to vanquish the Royals in 6 games, with Verlander pitching a complete game victory in the finale, and Fielder and Cabrera homering back to back—what can I say, money talks!

So, it’s Braves vs. Tigers, the Uptons and Uggla and the Unknowns vs. the team of MVP’s and poster-boys for the league. The match-up is full of intrigue, baseball history, Hank Aaron and Al Kaline chatting on the field before the first pitch, both teams fully integrated, with blacks and whites and Hispanics, having played against Asians and Europeans and Australians throughout the year, ready to dig in for one final go-around, just as Pete Browning, the “Louisville Slugger,” and Fleet Walker did more than a century ago, getting ready to take the mound and take no prisoners, like Satchel Paige and Old Hoss Radbourn would do. Then, and maybe even now, the money was only secondary, the game and the winning and losing of it “the thing itself.” With this ethos at work, we could see Justin Verlander working 12 or 15 innings in a game, or B.J. Upton running in a mad dash around the bases and sliding with aggression, or Dan Uggla laying his hand on Jason Heyward’s shoulder, in Atlanta, a city with past demons of racism to exorcise, in a gesture echoing PeeWee Reese reaching out to Jackie Robinson amidst the hateful fan shouts, echoing the photograph on the cover of Tom Dunkel’s book, where Satchel Paige stands in the back of the team photo, and Nordic Moose Johnson stands with his hand draped on Paige’s shoulder. This could be about the reconciliation that baseball has helped to effect in our nation, our hemisphere, to people across the world in Japan and Korea, living right now in the specter of fear, but playing on, with integrity. Prince Fielder could high-five and hug Justin Verlander on the dugout steps in Detroit, a city that literally burned with racial violence in the summer of 1967, the supposed “summer of love,” a city in economic collapse, for which baseball is more than an anodyne, more like a tool of revival.

Oh yeah, the World Series games! I was just about to predict them, but I want to have that framework in place of what such games could and should be, beyond spectacle and big business and inaccessible fame. So—Detroit in 6, Verlander pitching complete games in 2 and 6, digging deep like Satchel did, throwing the “no see ‘um” ball when the time was right. Miguel Cabrera will dazzle with that opposite field power and radiant smile. Justin and B.J. Upton will drive each other on and drive each other in, but everyone in these games, upon reflection, will feel like brothers in a family unkempt and troubled and bearing a scarred past, but also rejoicing, triumphant, healing—the family of baseball. And by the way, don’t be surprised if Evan Gattis, Braves backup catcher (league minimum $490,000) pinch hits against Tigers lefty reliever Darin Downs (slightly above minimum $494,000), and the outcome changes a game completely—the bargains will have their day!

Michael R. Stevens is professor of English at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Copyright © 2013 Books & Culture. Click for reprint information.

News

Streaming This Weekend, April 26, 2013

Christianity Today April 26, 2013

On Amazon Prime you can find Mystery Science Theater 3000: Code Name: Diamond Head, a perfect introduction to the classic show that was named one of TIME’s “Best 100 Shows of All Time.” MST3K plays a cheesy old movie, with small silhouettes of quirky robots in the foreground, as if seen from the back of a movie theater. These robots provide well-timed, hilarious one-liners lampooning the film. Code Name: Diamond Head is a “barely coherent tale of Hawaiian espionage.” Many other MST3K films are also available on Amazon Prime and Hulu.

The Mikado, now streaming on Netflix, is a filmed performance of the classic Gilbert and Sullivan operetta by the legendary D’Oyly Carte opera company. The whimsical and catchy musical recounts the story of wandering minstrel Nanki-Poo, who travels to the town of Titi-Pu only to discover that town executioner Ko-Ko must kill one person a day or himself be beheaded. (Seriously though, we promise it’s whimsical.)

The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything is a Veggie Tales movie featuring everyone’s favorite vegetable characters and starring Larry the Cucumber. Three busboys get a chance to become swashbuckling pirates. Read our review here.

Braveheart, the action classic starring Mel Gibson, is on and off of Netflix. This weekend, it’s on. William Wallace takes on the Brits in blue face paint in this generation-defining blockbuster.

If you haven’t checked out all of the classic Bond films on Netflix yet (Goldfinger, Dr. No, Thunderball) then this is your weekend to do it. But if you have that taken care of, then try Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007. This documentary on how the Bond series grew from a niche set of novels to one of the biggest franchises in history has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

The Shepherd

Michael Cromartie is guiding media elites into a more accurate view of conservative Christians.

Scott Suchman

When Rick Warren arrived at the Faith Angle Forum in Key West, Florida, in May 2005, the megachurch pastor addressed one of the last remaining groups in America that knew almost nothing about him: journalists. In the room were 20 of the most influential voices in media, including New York Times columnist David Brooks, best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell, and The New Yorker's Elsa Walsh. Although The Purpose Driven Life had already sold 25 million copies, says Brooks, "I'm not sure many in the room had heard of him."

For many elite journalists at the time, modern American Christianity was a strange and vaguely menacing hydra featuring the heads of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the crazed sandwich-board prophet who breathed fire in their general direction on the local street corner. Yet here was Warren, an exemplar of evangelicalism's West Coast variety, a species redolent of sunshine and casual conviviality. He distributed handshakes and hugs and thoughtful compliments on recent columns and reports. "Suddenly you saw a very different world," says Brooks. "This was not some fringe preacher. That had an impact on the group."

Now, eight years later, a new evangelical standard-bearer, Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, is addressing the same assembly. The move from Warren to Keller speaks to how American Christianity has changed in the interim. Whether the media have kept apace on such changes is debatable. There's no question that the mavens of mainstream media are still wont to treat "fringe" figures as central ones. Witness the elevation of Qur'an-burning Florida pastor Terry Jones to the status of an evangelical icon and a convenient counterpoint to radical imams on the Muslim side—in spite of the fact that Jones has no leadership or influence among American evangelicals. Yet it's also true that top journalists and columnists seeking Christian comment on social issues today are less likely to seek out the controversialists and the firebrands than to contact thoughtful representatives like Keller or scholars and statesmen like Mark Noll or Richard Mouw. All of these leaders, in fact, have cultivated relationships with writers and broadcasters at the Faith Angle Forum.

A Rare Talent

In the world of American media, an invitation to the Faith Angle Forum, now in its 14th year, is a golden ticket, and the man sending out the invitations is Michael Cromartie, a beltway believer whose meandering political and religious journey has rendered in him a rare talent for friendships on both sides of the aisle.

Cromartie converted to Christianity as a teenager in the Vietnam War era, proclaimed himself a progressive pacifist, and joined a Christian commune. Shortly after joining Chuck Colson's then-new Prison Fellowship, however, he was literally mugged by reality when thieves invaded his hotel room in Denver in 1978 and left him bound and gagged. (Cromartie managed to convince the burglars to leave his new tie so he could still attend his meetings with dignity.) That experience and Colson's influence produced a paradigm shift, and Cromartie went on to work for the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he is now vice president and director of the Evangelicals in Civic Life project. From his perch on M Street five blocks from the White House, he has served as a consigliere for conservative Christians in the nation's capital.

He has also helped countless journalists, whose only map to evangelicalism reads HERE BE DRAGONS, chart a more finely drawn geography of the American Christian landscape. In fact, the concept for the forums took shape as Cromartie received one call after another from knowledgeable journalists who wanted to know whether all evangelicals hate sex, or whether he could provide contact information for the author and publisher of the Book of Ephesians.

Cromartie could have easily joined the drone of evangelical complaints over the media's unfair treatment. In 2009, 52 percent of evangelicals—the highest percentage of any major religious group—told the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that they felt the media was "unfriendly" toward religion. When the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center asked clergy whether they believed that "most religion coverage today is biased against ministers and organized religion," 58 percent of mainline Protestants agreed strongly or somewhat, compared to 70 percent of Catholics and a soaring 91 percent of conservative Protestants. As scholars Bradley R. E. Wright, Christina Zozula, and W. Bradford Wilcox reported recently in the Journal of Religion & Society, conservative Christians are the "most likely" of all religious groups "to view the media as negatively targeting their faith."

Complaining that you're unfairly treated in the papers is, of course, as old as the papers themselves. Yet conservative Christians have plenty of examples. From perpetuating rumors that Sarah Palin banned library books in Wasilla, Alaska, like some small-town theocrat, to assuming that intolerant evangelicals would not support a Mormon as President, to engaging in opportunistic feeding frenzies over Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock's embarrassing comments on rape and abortion, mainstream media so often seem eager to highlight the worst and the weirdest. Too often they seem blind to or blithely uninterested in the best and the brightest lights in American evangelicalism.

A Real Bias

Studies, too, lend credence to evangelical complaints. While evangelicals receive plenty of attention and frequently positive coverage from local media, on the national level the coverage is disproportionately unfavorable. In one study, The New York Times was found to be twice as negative in its coverage of evangelicals as local newspapers in Atlanta and Dallas. This is, of course, not entirely surprising. Elite journalism is closely allied with elite academia, as fresh ranks of journalists spring every year from academic programs and many top journalists retain close affiliations with universities. On such campuses, according to a 2012 study from the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, faculty harbor far more negative attitudes toward evangelicals than they do toward any other religious group. Worse, evangelicals are overwhelmingly identified with political conservatism, and political conservatism is rarely loved in journalism's most exclusive precincts.

When mainstream media treat evangelicals poorly, the question is whether the mistreatment stems from real animosity against evangelicals among the largely secular media in Washington, D.C., and New York, or whether it's due to simple ignorance and the limitations of journalism itself. Cromartie found the latter.

"Journalists have a vocation to get at the truth," he says, but many find religion "a universe of discourse that's unfamiliar to them." With the support of the Pew Foundation and the Pew Forum, then, Cromartie hosted a series of lunches in Washington that expanded into the three-day Faith Angle Forums, first in Maine in 1999, then in Key West and now in South Beach, Miami. The Economist's Adrian Wooldridge calls them (in his book God Is Back) "one of the most pleasant as well as one of the most instructive experiences in journalism."

The forums would fail, of course, if they pushed a political or religious agenda. Cromartie invites the finest scholars, and some religious leaders, to provide journalists with deeper and more nuanced views of people of faith. He aims to help "journalists who are liberal and conservative and work for important outlets to become better informed about this extremely important part of American life." Presenters have ranged from Jim Daly of Focus on the Family to former Pakistani ambassador Husain Haqqani, from Walden Media's evangelical president Micheal Flaherty to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and Jean Bethke Elshtain of the University of Chicago.

The forums let scholars like Peter Berger and James Davison Hunter share their work with the men and women who raise the sluice gates of our public information channels. At one forum Hunter debated Alan Wolfe on the topic of the culture wars, and the debate exploded onto the Internet and spread further through a book published by the Brookings Institution. Hunter says the experience was "intense, stimulating, and very exciting." The Faith Angle Forum, he says, is "a wholly unique form of cultural engagement" that is "neither politicized nor partisan," but "takes seriously the vocation of journalism and seeks to serve those who inhabit that vocation through education and collegiality." The public then benefits, he believes, from "a better informed and more discerning group of elite journalists."

"We want [journalists] better informed. The argument is not advanced if all you do is curse the darkness." ~ Michael Cromartie

The forums may be "one of the best kept secrets in journalism," as ABC's Dan Harris called them, but their influence is easy to trace. Immediately after the Warren session in 2005, Brooks lauded in a column the transformative work of Christians like Warren in addressing extreme poverty in Africa, and Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne Jr. opened his book Souled Out with an extended quotation from Warren's talk. The session, says Dionne, gave him a deeper and more sympathetic understanding of Warren "as a fuller human being." A 2009 session with Francis Collins ended with the famed Christian geneticist, who now directs the National Institutes of Health, singing a worship song on his guitar. Peter Boyer was so fascinated that he wrote an admiring profile in The New Yorker of one of the world's foremost scientists finding harmony between science and faith. Similarly, one month after a session in November 2011 with Oxford professor Ard Louis, a young Christian at the frontier of theoretical physics, Michael Gerson cited Louis in his Washington Post column, arguing for a faith-friendly wonder at the intricacy of the cosmos.

Sociologist and Gordon College president D. Michael Lindsay found that that the number of times he was consulted or quoted in articles or columns multiplied after he presented to the forum. Indeed, says Dionne, one of the most positive effects of the forums has been to highlight the work of profoundly talented scholars who are also profoundly devout. "It's hard to hear someone like Mark Noll," says Dionne, "and then pretend there aren't seriously intellectual evangelicals."

A True Believer

Pew no longer bankrolls the conferences, so Cromartie pulls together smaller grants to keep them going. Recent economic turmoil has made finding funding difficult, but Cromartie remains a true believer. Evangelicals are still misunderstood, but that's only cause for greater engagement. He says, "We're sometimes asked, 'Why are you bringing that person, who wrote some misinformed pieces?' That's precisely why we're inviting them.

"We want them better informed. The argument is not advanced if all you do is curse the darkness."

Ross Douthat, a devout Catholic and the youngest New York Times columnist in the newspaper's history, has become an avid supporter and member of the forums. The conferences "vindicate evangelicals' sense that the media has particular deficits when it comes to understanding religion in general and evangelicalism in particular," and also show that evangelicals "are wrong to see it as a gap forged from malice, bias, and antipathy." If the press "just doesn't get religion," to quote CNN political analyst William Schneider, it's "a deficit of knowledge and not of sympathy or interest," says Douthat.

"Most reporters go into the business because they're curious, and if you present them with something interesting, they'll listen," agrees Brooks, whose late-night conversations with Christopher Hitchens at the forums are the stuff of legend. "You can complain or you can be helpful. Mike has chosen to be helpful."

Tim Keller arrived at the most recent Faith Angle Forum, in March, to explain the faith and future of American evangelicals. He presented an image different from Warren's but no less compelling—more urban, cultured, and intellectual. Today's younger generation of evangelicals, he says, are more complex politically, more multiethnic, more likely to enter the cultural industries and "captivated by the idea of sacrificial service and pouring themselves out for the poor." Pressed repeatedly on Christian opposition to same-sex marriage, he explains that evangelicals see sex "not as a consumer good but a form of self-donation." Evangelicals believe that "male and female have unique glories" and marriage must bring those glories together. This makes sex "a kind of Eucharist for married people, a reunion of the alienated genders."

Whether or not it convinced the skeptics in the room, it was a winsome and impressive response. Afterward, Keller reflected that events like these "destroy stereotypes and clear away the fog." He only wished, he said, there could be more events to accommodate more journalists, and more pastors could experience facing the journalistic firing line and having to justify their views in public language.

Of course, without Cromartie's affable guidance and his enthusiasm for his friends on both ends of the spectrum, the forums could not have navigated the treacherous waters of faith and politics for so long. At the 2005 session, several journalists pressed Warren on the issue of damnation. The questions were pointed, the atmosphere tense. Cromartie intervened: "Questions about eternal destination are best handled over the cocktail hour soon to follow."

And discussed over cocktails they were, in the warm evening air in Key West, by Rick Warren and many of the country's leading journalists—much as, in South Beach eight years later, Keller and another group of writers and columnists adjourned from their discussion for a friendly lunch. Such is the singular accomplishment of Cromartie, who decided that lighting a candle was better than cursing the darkness.

Timothy Dalrymple earned his doctorate in religion from Harvard's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and is now director of content at Patheos.com.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to a 1993 Washington Post news story as describing conservative Christians as "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command." The Post article had used that description more narrowly to describe followers of broadcasters Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. We regret the error.

News

Died: George Jones, Legendary Country and Gospel Singer

(UPDATED) Musician turned to God late in life after rebellious lifestyle landed him in a coma.

Christianity Today April 26, 2013

Update (April 26): Russell Moore warns against Christians viewing Jones as a hypocrite:

George Jones has died, and I am afraid a lot of people will think he was a hypocrite. George Jones was no hypocrite. He was the troubadour of the Christ-haunted South. The raw emotion, and even whispers of torture, in his voice can teach American Christianity much about the nature of sin and the longing for repentance.

––-

Country star George Jones has died as a result of complications from recent hospitalizations. He was 81.

The legendary singer may have been known for his alcohol and drug use, but he also had Christian roots–and a voice well suited to gospel music. The Associated Press reports that Jones had “one of the most golden voices of any genre, a clenched, precise, profoundly expressive baritone.”

Jones was raised as a Christian, but in the early parts of his career kept a wild lifestyle which led him to become “infamous for ditching performances after drinking and drug binges.” At one point, Jones even wound up in a coma as a result of an alcohol-induced car accident.

But Jones told CBN that he awoke from that coma singing gospel songs: “I wanted some gospel music, and my whole life changed,” he said.

Although he said he felt that parts of his life had been wasted, Jones said God kept him alive for a purpose. His main goal in life became to “try to get closer and closer to Him.” He recorded an album of gospel songs, and said he was more proud of it than any other album.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube