Archives For Culture

I just checked out again the Biblioblog top 50—the 50 biblical studies-related blogs that had the most hits in the past month. That includes a pretty big bunch of blogs, nearly 600 from across the theological (and even atheistical) spectrum.

So why are there comparatively few conservative evangelical blogs among the top 50? Justin Taylor and Andy Naselli—and even Al Mohler—are nowhere to be found. No Tim Challies. No Trevin Wax. No Rod Decker. No Carl Trueman. The blogs I’ve just listed are all part of the site’s database (with the exception of the last, probably because people who blog using incomprehensible British pseudonymous personalities are disqualified), but they didn’t make the top 50 at any time in 2012.

The August, 2012 top 50 was actually topped by the “Debunking Christianity” blog. And most of the other blogs on the November, 2012 list, from what I can tell, are theologically liberal. Some are Jewish. One is an unchurched Christian of some strange sort. I don’t read any of them. Not one. (I used to read Evangelical Textual Criticism and Euangelion, but no more. And Euangelion is evangelical but too far left, too academically dry, and too iconoclastic for my tastes. καὶ τὰ λοιπά is interesting, but I had to take it out of my feeds for time reasons.)

I am genuinely curious about the failure of evangelicals to show up on—much less dominate—the list; I was pretty surprised by it. I thought mainline Protestantism was dying, that evangelicalism was far more vital and large. So why are blogs that push mainline views more popular than evangelical blogs?

  • Is it possible that there is a greater number of evangelical bloggers and that they therefore tend to drive down each other’s stats by spreading out the overall readership too thinly?
  • Is it that evangelicals are fooling themselves about their influence and actually constitute a minority of self-proclaimed Christians in the English-speaking world? (Is it, indeed, that hit counts include the whole globe and not just the U.S.?)
  • Is it that a lot of left-wing evangelicals are paying attention to liberal blogs because that’s the direction they’re headed?
  • Is it that the top 50′s hit counts are influenced by links from culturally mainstream sites like the Huffington Post—people who pay no attention to evangelicals?
  • Does this have something to do with a North Korean plot? (Just kidding, just kidding! It would have to be Iranian.)

What do you think? 

P.S. And why do so many top blogs have such horrendous graphic design?

A Brighter Witness: Conversations on the Christian and the ArtsA Brighter Witness: Conversations on the Christian and the Arts by Dwight Gustafson

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I love Dr. Gustafson’s choral (and other) compositions. I’ve sung them in German in Germany and in Polish in Poland.

I’ve sung under Dr. Gus’ baton as the great man patiently led us college kids (emphasis on “kids”) in a masterpiece (Handel’s Messiah) that we couldn’t possibly understand like he did.

I’ve even heard Dr. Gustafson preach—and preach very effectively—to a small Sunday gathering of barbershop singers. (Beat that!)

And now I’ve read his little collection of quick essays telling stories of his extensive artistic and musical travels. I journeyed with him to see Renaissance art and hear challenging music in Europe; I stepped backstage with him, the conductor, after grand operas; I watched a touching scene Christmas night in a local hospital, as carolers (Dr. Gustafson’s family) bring joy to a sad place.

The shortness of his essays reminds me of a choral gem, Arvo Pärt’s setting of “Bogoroditse Djevo.” The piece makes its point quickly and eloquently, and then, gracefully, it departs.

A very few of Dr. Gus’ gems don’t end quite so gracefully, as if two measures were accidentally added by the printer to an otherwise wonderful piece of sheet music. Yes, several of his moralizing applications (especially at the beginning of the book) seemed out of place. But he presents so many touching anecdotes and rich vignettes that I felt it quite easy to forgive him. A short time well spent.

CODA

I’ll provide just one quote, a bit of “moralizing” I felt was well done!

The world beckons in all our decision making, not least in our choices in the arts. Immediate mass communication has determined for us what is normal and acceptable by mass vote, not by any predetermined standard. Quality and value have been replaced by popularity, by average taste which has already become trivial and banal when the digital revolution began. What once was ugly now passes by without comment, let alone protest. Discrimination has been swept aside by desire. (70)

View all my reviews

Facebook, Twitter, and Google … have inadvertently created an electorate able, should it choose—and apparently it does—to read only the news that confirms its political instincts. This, too, has contributed to polarization and ignorance.

—Claire Berlinski in City Journal (HT: Brian Collins)

The New Media

[John] Milbank’s fundamental double claim: first, that if God is who Christians say he is and if he has done what Christians say he has done, then theology, the science of God, presents the “metanarrative” of history, the organizing logic of all knowledge, with the right and responsibility to intervene to correct all other sciences; and, second, that modern theology has steadily ceded its terrain to secular thought, so that instead of positioning other sciences theology has been positioned by them and rendered itself superfluous.

—Peter Leithart, review of John Milbank, The Word Made Strange: Theology, Language, Culture (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997). Published in Westminster Theological Journal 60:1 (1998), 175.

Leithart on Milbank

The public square, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If it is not filled with the lively expression of the most deeply held convictions of the people, including their convictions grounded in religion, it will be filled by the quasi-religious beliefs of secularism’ as Nazism and communism showed.

—Gordon Preece, ”The Public People of God: A Paradigm for Social Ethics.” Evangelical Review of Theology, vol. 24 (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Periodicals, 2000).

The Naked Public Square

Vote for Me!

November 21, 2012 — Leave a comment

I’ve just seen one of those rare birds, an Internet discussion that seems civil. And I’m in the rare bird! It’s over at Quora, a pretty neat site I’ve not spent much time on but attracts higher-than-average-quality user-submitted answers to a wide range of user-submitted questions.

I bit on the following question:

Religion and Politics: Why do some people think “It’s in the Bible” is a valid argument?

I bit because no one else had given a satisfactorily Christian answer. Answers are voted up or down, and the top vote-getter for this question is a young man named Shan who gives a classic secularist reply. I’m impressed, frankly, by his intelligence and urbanity. But I need you to vote my answer over his (if you like it)! The answer with the most votes lands at the top of the page where others may notice it. (And check out my discussion with Shan beneath it. The guy’s a reader and a clear thinker.)

Click here!

Materialist Dogma

November 20, 2012 — Leave a comment

Alvin Plantinga on the new iconoclastic book by philosopher Thomas F. Nagel:

[Nagel has] performed an important service with his withering critical examination of some of the most common and oppressive dogmas of our age.

Read the whole review.

Last week or so I was driving somewhere and listening to an ad on the radio, an ad that (like those Geico commercials [TV, 2007*] with the Pierce Brosnan look-a-like) was intentionally ironic, self-referential. That is, it made fun of itself, pretending to be a non-ad ad. As Bob is my witless (Rugrats, 1993*), I thought, “I’ve got to write an article about the irony now prevailing in contemporary culture.” But the prospect was daunting; I didn’t feel S-M-R-T enough (Simpsons, 1999*) to even start.

So two paragraphs into this must-read article, I knew that A) I would post a link to it on my blog and B) my thunder had been stolen and then greatly improved upon. A French prof at Princeton got my idea into the New York Times. Not fair. In her piece, she describes with not-fair levels of insight the culture of ironic malaise that we now call hipsterism. She worries publicly about a visible (?) class of Americans for whom the unbearable pressures of being are alleviated by donning a non-identity identity. She describes hipsters as people who wear and collect and do stuff they don’t personally like from eras in which they did not personally live in order to escape their own failure to contribute to Western culture. (Whew!)

And, she points out, they make as many pop-culture references per minute as there are Twilight sequels.*

The cartoons appended to the article are to die for. If you have no idea what I’m talking about when I speak of a hipster culture of irony, there are 2,000 words of pictures on the page which will clue you in.

Can this humble blogger add an insight to such a good piece? I just wonder if the culture of ironic pop-culture references is one reason Wikipedia is so popular. So many articles end with a “This Topic in Popular Culture” section—it’s a perfect usage guide for the hipster. You don’t want to quote Chandler (FRIENDS, 1998*) when it was really Kramer (Seinfeld, 1996*). When you smile knowingly, the true cognoscenti may smile back wryly. Your cover will be blown.

Fundamentalism: The Plot Thickens

So I was reading blithely along, chuckling and marveling at appropriate points. And then (“all of the sudden!” as my toddler likes to shout), fifteen paragraphs in, I was shocked to see myself!

Historically, vacuums eventually have been filled by something—more often than not, a hazardous something. Fundamentalists are never ironists; dictators are never ironists.

I think that’s what you call a backhanded compliment. It’s nice to be recognized for our success in avoiding ironism. But not so nice when the next person on the platform to get the award is Pol Pot. Why can’t people be nice to us? I can be cool in a detached way! I have a youth-sized 1993 National Geography Bee T-shirt that I sometimes wear in an ironic fashion!

But we fundamentalists get no mercy. One of the commenters, whose viewpoint achieved “Recommended Pick” status, is even more pointed than the article:

I think to fully understand the hipster you have to place him alongside the fundamentalist. The hipster and the fundamentalist are two sides of the same fake coin; they are both fearful people. The first is too afraid of looking like a fool to risk being wrong or right; the second is so afraid of ambiguity, of not knowing the difference between wrong and right, that he throws himself blindly into “faith.” They are equally fearful responses to the moral ambiguity of life. The hipster stands outside every attempt at sincere living, mocking anyone who tries to find a moral center; the fundamentalist pretends there is no question about it, there is only one center, one God, one true, one good, and he has found it.

Jesus was capable of irony, even sarcasm. I have always loved His response to the Syro-phoenician woman, for example (Matt. 15:22–28). Two could play His game. And it’s only because you’ve heard it your whole life that you fail to laugh at His “Get the plank out of your own eye” line (Matt. 7:3). Laughter does good like a medicine (Prov. 17:22), even sometimes ironic laughter.

But I think this commenter is on to something. People who truly believe in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith can’t build their lives on the shifting sands of irony. Our lives are founded on a rock. Even our young men are supposed to be sober (Titus 2:6). (The Greek word for “sober” means, literally, “not slackers.”) For some discussion topics, the ironic mode is nothing less than blasphemous. A Christian life will look like fideism to a culture of hipsters—or to a culture of scientific modernist materialist evolutionists. We will look fake. But there is only one center, one God, one true. And He has found us. What else can we do?

The Point

I didn’t start this post with a point in mind, but I can’t help it. I’m reminded of how Tim Keller once pointed out that the trend toward casual dress in society was, he judged, a simple fruit of rebellion against authority. He wondered aloud whether churches should support such a trend by encouraging casual dress in worship.

I feel the same way about ironic hipsterism, despite being myself someone with (ahem) no mean ability to drop subtle references to pop-culture (minus all R-rated movies and nearly every TV show created after the year 2000).* Hipster culture means something. It says something. Is that something consistent with the Christian faith? I urge you to read the article and decide, before God our Rock, for yourself.

*Disclaimer: The pop-culture references in this piece are only illustrative, proving that I am a man of my generation. I discard all irony and prove myself a fundamentalist when I say I’d rather not know what I know about 1990s television.

You must read this. Keep in mind, it was written in 1987.

Two interesting articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict:

  1. Abdulateef Al-Mulhim, a retired commodore of the Royal Saudi Navy, argues that Arabs have invested untold billions in a fruitless conflict with Israel that has only left their own people divided, poor, and oppressed by dictators.

    The real enemies of the Arab world are corruption, lack of good education, lack of good health care, lack of freedom, lack of respect for … human lives and finally, the Arab world had many dictators who [have] used the Arab-Israeli conflict to suppress their own people.

  2. An Arab-Israeli politician who is founding a new Israeli party argues that Arabs have fared well in the Israeli democracy and that they would fare much better if they got rid of their own leaders, who use the conflict with Israel as a means to grow rich and impoverish their own people.

    Our leaders have defrauded us for 60 years. Give us a single Knesset mandate and we will do more for the people in four to five years than they have done in 60.