This Monday I visited the annual Valley Greek Festival, held at St. Nicholas’ Greek Orthodox Church in Northridge. Even though I’ve lived in the area for most of my life, I’ve never been to this fair, and since I didn’t have plans until the evening, I dropped by to grab some lunch and to hear their church choir. The festival lasted for all 3 days of Memorial Day weekend, but there were still hundreds of people on Monday afternoon. I started with the church tour, and listened to the young priest describe not only the church’s art and architecture, but also Orthodox worship.
Outside, tents were all around selling Greek food, pastries, alcohol, and crafts. The food and live music were great, but the thing that stood out to me, haunted me in fact, was the dance. Being a dancer myself, I was delighted that the dance floor was the geographic center of the outside activities. I’ve seen all kinds of dances, but the Greeks are unique in that they seem to always dance in lines, everyone holding hands, weaving in and out of serpentine swirls with certain set patterns of footwork. There was a group of adolescents in the center, dancing around a flagpole, who were particularly fun to watch. It was refreshing to watch young men who were unafraid to dance, adding their own athletic touches and improvisations, dancing in these lines with their friends, guys and girls alike. Around them were chains of people of different ages, Greeks and others who have either studied the dances or just decided to jump in and pick them up as they went along. Among them all, the haunting, kinetic refrain of the dances themselves were saying, “Life is not to be lived alone, but together.”
This church’s openness to others, their comfort with their cultural self-identity, their celebration of faith, food, and drink, family, music, and dance in an intergenerational expression follows Craig Van Gelder’s model of the missional church (and Norma Cook Everist’s work, The Church As Learning Community), and this impresses me. But as I reflected on the event, and certain expressions I saw of how things “are supposed to be,” I also found myself asking painful, personal, “Why, God?” questions when I compared what I experienced there with my own cultural environment, one that I never seemed to fully fit in growing up. I asked God why He chose to make me a dancer and yet place me in a culture where guys supposedly don’t do that. I ask Him why I wasn’t raised in a family that went to church, where a whole support network of people could have embraced me—the family of God. I told Him I sometimes wonder if it’s too late for me to find some of the connections and experiences I truly long for, and that I’m angry that He sometimes seems to be so slow and forgetful towards me. I wasn’t expecting any of this to come from attending this event, but visible expressions of the Kingdom can do that to you.
Theologian Walter Brueggemann described the Church as being in exile. If the Church’s desire is to be one-and-the-same with the mainstream culture, I guess you could describe our current status like that. But after reflecting on this congregation’s festival and my interactions with it, I believe that in our American context, it is primarily individuals who are exiled from one another.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Wandering With Saint Julian
This last weekend, as part of an annual urban ministry event with the young adults of my church, I co-led a team that served at a mission on LA's "Skid Row," a district where thousands of homeless people congregate at different times of the day. It's home to several missions, flop houses, drug dealers, cops, and do-gooders. We were in the last category. Though part of our day was spent at a well-run rehab and service center, helping serve lunch and dinner, during the first part of our morning we split up into groups of three. Ours walked the blocks from around 5th St. and San Julian to Los Angeles Ave. and back, seeking people to engage with conversation and offers of prayer.
At first, we were all a bit reluctant to engage these strangers, much like we would avoid any other fellow Angelino, but as we returned towards the mission we felt the burden strongly enough to finally take some initiative and crack the ice. We approached one female sitting on a blanket, basically saying hello and asking her if she wanted prayer for anything, to which she simply nodded her head "no." A cop car pulled up and told her she had to get up and move on, to which she quite lucidly said, "OK; I'll move." We realized that the cops there don't like people loitering around the areas with businesses, but would also later discover that they didn't do much to crack down on the frequent drug sales along San Julian. We spoke with William, who was selling scented oils, who told us he was a Christian who served at a nearby church and is now 3 years sober and recently married. We prayed with him that God would continue to do what He's been doing in his life, and asked William to pray for us. After his prayer, we seemed to have no problem engaging with the folks along San Julian.
William was sitting in front of a mini park, surrounded by high bars so people couldn't sleep there at night, where CoCo was waiting for the workers to finish hosing off the benches beneath the two gazebos trimmed with icicle lights that are ironically and teasingly barred off during the hours when they are turned on. A rather morbidly-painted angel was posing in the back corner, one of those strewn about Los Angeles, painted by different artists for the "A Community of Angels Sculptural Project." This ugly one seemed to be the leftover they couldn't find a better place for. The rather nice micro-park seemed to me to be almost a piece of art itself, a theater for city council members to display to visiting dignitaries to prove they are "revitalizing" Skid Row rather than something that actually revitalizes the residents of Skid Row, though it does offer a bit of respite during daylight hours.
As we continued to walk along the narrow street we met Cecil, a sweet man from Georgia with a bump above his left eye from when he fell two nights before while drunk driving his wheelchair; Jay, a buff dude who is currently taking classes in Santa Monica to be a personal trainer; Chocolate, who told us the factor keeping her on the streets is her drug addiction, as she sat 15 feet away from a crack sale and across the street from a recovery center; William, who, after asking us to look away while he shot himself up, quoted to us more Bible verses about the promise of salvation than most seminarians are able to, and with whom we had a lively conversation about poetry.
At another street corner there is a Set Free church, with a wall mural of a gate with part of Matthew 16:18 written on it: "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." These brothers and sisters are indeed sitting at the city gates, a traditional gathering place. They are at the surreal fulcrum point where the gates of hell abut the gates of heaven. Most of these residents are cohabiting in-between both, gambling to see which angel will take them in further: an angel of light, or one posing as such. Addiction and Freedom. Light and Darkness. Love and Murder. Community and Fear. Poison and Pleasure. Life and Death. Simulacrum and Safety.
According to artist J. Michael Walker (who has explored the juxtaposition of saints and their namesake streets in his "All the Saints of the City of Angels" show), San Julian is the patron saint of wanderers. Skid Row sees multitudes of wanderers, most of whom don't last long; some are afflicted, some return to help those still stuck in its grasp. It is a distressing journey to fellowship with Saint Julian, knowing that "the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." (Matt. 7:13) At the same time, I know that our Lord Himself was a wanderer, without a home to call His own. (Matt. 8:20)
I was left to wonder: ultimately, which gate will our Saturday friends enter? Which gate will we enter? The residents of Skid Row live our lives, just writ much larger, where the pixels of our struggles--visceral and metaphysical--are enlarged beyond any crafty concealment, confronting us face-to-face. Perhaps this painful revelation itself is the blessing of St. Julian.
At first, we were all a bit reluctant to engage these strangers, much like we would avoid any other fellow Angelino, but as we returned towards the mission we felt the burden strongly enough to finally take some initiative and crack the ice. We approached one female sitting on a blanket, basically saying hello and asking her if she wanted prayer for anything, to which she simply nodded her head "no." A cop car pulled up and told her she had to get up and move on, to which she quite lucidly said, "OK; I'll move." We realized that the cops there don't like people loitering around the areas with businesses, but would also later discover that they didn't do much to crack down on the frequent drug sales along San Julian. We spoke with William, who was selling scented oils, who told us he was a Christian who served at a nearby church and is now 3 years sober and recently married. We prayed with him that God would continue to do what He's been doing in his life, and asked William to pray for us. After his prayer, we seemed to have no problem engaging with the folks along San Julian.
William was sitting in front of a mini park, surrounded by high bars so people couldn't sleep there at night, where CoCo was waiting for the workers to finish hosing off the benches beneath the two gazebos trimmed with icicle lights that are ironically and teasingly barred off during the hours when they are turned on. A rather morbidly-painted angel was posing in the back corner, one of those strewn about Los Angeles, painted by different artists for the "A Community of Angels Sculptural Project." This ugly one seemed to be the leftover they couldn't find a better place for. The rather nice micro-park seemed to me to be almost a piece of art itself, a theater for city council members to display to visiting dignitaries to prove they are "revitalizing" Skid Row rather than something that actually revitalizes the residents of Skid Row, though it does offer a bit of respite during daylight hours.
As we continued to walk along the narrow street we met Cecil, a sweet man from Georgia with a bump above his left eye from when he fell two nights before while drunk driving his wheelchair; Jay, a buff dude who is currently taking classes in Santa Monica to be a personal trainer; Chocolate, who told us the factor keeping her on the streets is her drug addiction, as she sat 15 feet away from a crack sale and across the street from a recovery center; William, who, after asking us to look away while he shot himself up, quoted to us more Bible verses about the promise of salvation than most seminarians are able to, and with whom we had a lively conversation about poetry.
At another street corner there is a Set Free church, with a wall mural of a gate with part of Matthew 16:18 written on it: "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." These brothers and sisters are indeed sitting at the city gates, a traditional gathering place. They are at the surreal fulcrum point where the gates of hell abut the gates of heaven. Most of these residents are cohabiting in-between both, gambling to see which angel will take them in further: an angel of light, or one posing as such. Addiction and Freedom. Light and Darkness. Love and Murder. Community and Fear. Poison and Pleasure. Life and Death. Simulacrum and Safety.
According to artist J. Michael Walker (who has explored the juxtaposition of saints and their namesake streets in his "All the Saints of the City of Angels" show), San Julian is the patron saint of wanderers. Skid Row sees multitudes of wanderers, most of whom don't last long; some are afflicted, some return to help those still stuck in its grasp. It is a distressing journey to fellowship with Saint Julian, knowing that "the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." (Matt. 7:13) At the same time, I know that our Lord Himself was a wanderer, without a home to call His own. (Matt. 8:20)I was left to wonder: ultimately, which gate will our Saturday friends enter? Which gate will we enter? The residents of Skid Row live our lives, just writ much larger, where the pixels of our struggles--visceral and metaphysical--are enlarged beyond any crafty concealment, confronting us face-to-face. Perhaps this painful revelation itself is the blessing of St. Julian.
Monday, April 27, 2009
What Lies Beneath
Yesterday morning, while yet half-awake, my mind started wandering to a hypothetical conversation with a friend about the trustworthiness of Scripture, whether we can really trust it as a reliable (let alone infallible) revelation of God and His will for us. He was emphasizing the humanity of its authors, their personal biases and cultural issues, and man’s imperfection. Recently, I have been reading a book for a seminary class called The Ministry of the Missional Church, by Craig Van Gelder. In it, he posits that the Holy Spirit is continually at work building the Kingdom of God and that it is the Church’s task to join in on that work (although the Church itself is the primary vehicle a sovereign God has chosen to use to accomplish that lofty goal).
It seems to me that one’s theological presumptions in this matter weigh heavily in how one deals with, say, certain elements of Biblical criticism; for example, if single books are really the products of several editors, using multiple sources, etc. If these understandings are true and if the story ended there, then I would share my friend’s concern about the reliability of Scripture and its possible pollution by human authors. But what I realized during my quasi-dream state is that such a view extends beyond the issues of Scriptural trustworthiness, and presumes certain things about the very nature of God.
If the books and letters of the Bible are essentially just human documents with ideas about God, no more holy or Spirit-breathed than any other essay or treatise on the subject, then underneath that assumption lies a rather Deistic view of God, where He is rather distant and unloving, not concerned to be known on any authentically personal level, leaving us to struggle even harder than we already do understand or obey Him. If, however, Van Gelder is right, and God has been and is actively involved in His Church, building up His kingdom, then it follows that God would leave an accurate record, love letter, and instruction manual to His children, mysteriously but successfully working with (and often in spite of) human personalities and flaws to attain this goal. It makes sense to me then that such a God would also have guided the church councils who defined the canon just as much as He did the authors themselves, especially considering the importance of the work. It also follows that the same Holy Spirit has continued to work in and through the Church to this very day, guarding this sacred revelation, and enabling His body to live out this humanly-impossible missio dei on earth.
Reflecting on the continued work of the Holy Spirit in the world has not only reaffirmed my hope in the work of the Church, but in the very trustworthiness of the God-breathed Scriptures themselves.
It seems to me that one’s theological presumptions in this matter weigh heavily in how one deals with, say, certain elements of Biblical criticism; for example, if single books are really the products of several editors, using multiple sources, etc. If these understandings are true and if the story ended there, then I would share my friend’s concern about the reliability of Scripture and its possible pollution by human authors. But what I realized during my quasi-dream state is that such a view extends beyond the issues of Scriptural trustworthiness, and presumes certain things about the very nature of God.
If the books and letters of the Bible are essentially just human documents with ideas about God, no more holy or Spirit-breathed than any other essay or treatise on the subject, then underneath that assumption lies a rather Deistic view of God, where He is rather distant and unloving, not concerned to be known on any authentically personal level, leaving us to struggle even harder than we already do understand or obey Him. If, however, Van Gelder is right, and God has been and is actively involved in His Church, building up His kingdom, then it follows that God would leave an accurate record, love letter, and instruction manual to His children, mysteriously but successfully working with (and often in spite of) human personalities and flaws to attain this goal. It makes sense to me then that such a God would also have guided the church councils who defined the canon just as much as He did the authors themselves, especially considering the importance of the work. It also follows that the same Holy Spirit has continued to work in and through the Church to this very day, guarding this sacred revelation, and enabling His body to live out this humanly-impossible missio dei on earth.
Reflecting on the continued work of the Holy Spirit in the world has not only reaffirmed my hope in the work of the Church, but in the very trustworthiness of the God-breathed Scriptures themselves.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Perils and Paralysis of Political Paradigms
A good friend and I were eating lunch last week and, as we often do, got to talking about various political, social, and spiritual issues. Building off of pervious conversations, it has been determined that I am something of a Tree-Hugger, and he falls more in the vein of what I shall call a Neocon. Like him, I oppose abortion and share his conviction on many other “conservative” issues, but when it comes to being intentional about being green, our paths divide. To me, my environmental convictions are perfectly congruent with my theology, believing that part of following Christ is the realignment of one’s materialistic ambitions to seek the greater good, and being a good steward of one of God’s greatest blessings to us, planet earth. My friend notes that many environmentalist types, if not most, are also pro-choice. He challenges me by asking how I can support abortion. I told him I don’t, but he said that environmentalists are for abortion because they want to keep the population down. He said he felt like we really don’t need to worry too much about the earth, that it is quite capable of repairing itself (we can cut down the trees for clogged housing developments, but eventually the trees will grow back). Although I disagreed with his last point, I tried to explain to him that A≠B in every case, and that just because I support one of “their” ideas, this doesn’t mean that I share all their other conclusions. This made perfect sense to me, but such a “misalignment” didn’t fit within my friend’s rather dichotomistic political paradigm.
Michael Budde in The (Magic) Kingdom of God (Westview, 1997) criticizes the Church’s frequent accommodation to the ideas and paradigms of mass culture, one that stands in opposition to so many of the Church’s values and its vision for life. Liberal and Conservative alike frequently criticize “the media” for its undesired influence on our lives and values; I believe a large part of that critique should be focused on the political arena—and not just the realm of law and policy, but the political pop culture and media exploitation of politics and party. Popular media seems to reinforce if not create these types of “obvious” political alliances and paradigms, where an “if A=B, then B=C” logic rules. Such a logic may make sense mathematically, but doesn’t work out as well in the realm of politics, where political alliances vary across nation, era, even election season, and where people thankfully don’t have to think like everyone else they might be grouped with, as politically disadvantageous or perplexing as that may sometimes be.
Michael Budde in The (Magic) Kingdom of God (Westview, 1997) criticizes the Church’s frequent accommodation to the ideas and paradigms of mass culture, one that stands in opposition to so many of the Church’s values and its vision for life. Liberal and Conservative alike frequently criticize “the media” for its undesired influence on our lives and values; I believe a large part of that critique should be focused on the political arena—and not just the realm of law and policy, but the political pop culture and media exploitation of politics and party. Popular media seems to reinforce if not create these types of “obvious” political alliances and paradigms, where an “if A=B, then B=C” logic rules. Such a logic may make sense mathematically, but doesn’t work out as well in the realm of politics, where political alliances vary across nation, era, even election season, and where people thankfully don’t have to think like everyone else they might be grouped with, as politically disadvantageous or perplexing as that may sometimes be.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
"In Praise of the Altar Call," or, "There's No Such Thing As A Private Christian"
A book I am reading for seminary, "Life on the Vine: Cultivating the Fruit of the Spirit in Christian Community" by Philip D. Kenneson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), highlights a troubling trend within some congregations of contemporary Evangelicaldom, the culturally-approved bent toward "private religion." Apart from vague appeals to God or even Christianity from both political parties during this recent election season, most Americans, though they tend to claim belief in God on some level (and many claim to be a Christian of one brand or another), most in practice seem to prefer to keep their faith to themselves, feeling it is a "private matter" better left discussed at their own places of worship, their home, or--for many—only between themselves and God.
Kenneson feels this stems from a popularly held dualism that separates the “spiritual” aspects of life and reality from the “material” and mundane. Religion, being exclusively “spiritual” many believe, is therefore something to be kept private, for oneself and those (somehow) already like-minded alone. Kenneson notes that “Most Christians at other times and places believed that disciples of Christ needed to make a public profession of faith.” (93) But today, with the “privatization” of the faith of many, altar calls and other forms of one’s public conversion have been replaced with simply praying “a silent prayer to themselves (and presumably to God) in order to welcome Jesus into their hearts.” (Ibid)
Traditionally, baptism has been the time in which a convert publicly confesses Christ to the congregation and receives the initiatory rite into the faith. In the Evangelical church since the 19th century, the altar call, in which the repentant are asked to come down to the front of the church to pray with elders to receive Christ or to begin that process has been quite popular as another public expression of entering faith. Either way, the Church has long viewed conversion as a public experience, one in which a person joins the body of Christ, of which she or he is only a part. The private prayer version encourages “Lone Ranger Christianity,” where it’s just “me and Jesus.” Churches need to set the tone by providing opportunities for those who wish to come to Christ to be embraced by the body of believers, as initially awkward as that might be. Like the old saying about marriage, you aren’t just receiving a spouse; you’re joining a family!
Kenneson feels this stems from a popularly held dualism that separates the “spiritual” aspects of life and reality from the “material” and mundane. Religion, being exclusively “spiritual” many believe, is therefore something to be kept private, for oneself and those (somehow) already like-minded alone. Kenneson notes that “Most Christians at other times and places believed that disciples of Christ needed to make a public profession of faith.” (93) But today, with the “privatization” of the faith of many, altar calls and other forms of one’s public conversion have been replaced with simply praying “a silent prayer to themselves (and presumably to God) in order to welcome Jesus into their hearts.” (Ibid)
Traditionally, baptism has been the time in which a convert publicly confesses Christ to the congregation and receives the initiatory rite into the faith. In the Evangelical church since the 19th century, the altar call, in which the repentant are asked to come down to the front of the church to pray with elders to receive Christ or to begin that process has been quite popular as another public expression of entering faith. Either way, the Church has long viewed conversion as a public experience, one in which a person joins the body of Christ, of which she or he is only a part. The private prayer version encourages “Lone Ranger Christianity,” where it’s just “me and Jesus.” Churches need to set the tone by providing opportunities for those who wish to come to Christ to be embraced by the body of believers, as initially awkward as that might be. Like the old saying about marriage, you aren’t just receiving a spouse; you’re joining a family!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Next U.S. President and the Abortion Debate
A Facebook group forum discussion for members of the Christian denomination I belong to asks this question: "Can Christians, in good conscience, support Barack Obama for President? Yes or No? Please explain.” To this, I wrote in response:
"Personally, I am throwing my vote in for McCain, but yes, I believe a Christian can vote for Obama. I know people at my Foursquare church (a fairly diverse one) who will be voting for Obama. They highlight his strengths (and I do think he has some) just like I highlight McCain's (and he does have some weaknesses). I agree that abortion is a horrible evil, and I grieve that it is so "acceptable" in our nation right now. In fact, one thing that really turns me off about Obama is his (at least historical) support for partial-birth abortion, a barbaric practice that isn't even legal in "Liberal" and "Post-Christian" Europe. I wonder what kind of man could support such an act. That being said, NO President will make abortion illegal, in fact a co-worker of mine went to R. Reagan's church and said that he said privately that he could openly be pro-life bec in the end he couldn't do anything about it, so it was basically lip service, so sometimes I think it's said just to get Christian votes. A change in abortion legislature will have to be decided by the courts--BUT the next Pres will be appointing more Supreme Court positions, so that makes a difference there. However, having abortion legal doesn't cause abortions--the question is what are we as a society doing to discourage them and help pregnant mothers in bad situations, legal or not? And the better question is how are WE living as Christians and as the Church? Are WE living missional, just and holy lives in the midst of a corrupt generation? Whether the current administration supports the mission of Christ's kingdom or not? Sure, I want our nation to reflect Biblical values and we have a great framework for that, and we could do more in that arena and I will do my little part to work towards that--but I won't depend on the gov to do the job for me. Obama or McCain or whoever--I am serving the Lord, and may His kingdom come, His will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Amen!"
"Personally, I am throwing my vote in for McCain, but yes, I believe a Christian can vote for Obama. I know people at my Foursquare church (a fairly diverse one) who will be voting for Obama. They highlight his strengths (and I do think he has some) just like I highlight McCain's (and he does have some weaknesses). I agree that abortion is a horrible evil, and I grieve that it is so "acceptable" in our nation right now. In fact, one thing that really turns me off about Obama is his (at least historical) support for partial-birth abortion, a barbaric practice that isn't even legal in "Liberal" and "Post-Christian" Europe. I wonder what kind of man could support such an act. That being said, NO President will make abortion illegal, in fact a co-worker of mine went to R. Reagan's church and said that he said privately that he could openly be pro-life bec in the end he couldn't do anything about it, so it was basically lip service, so sometimes I think it's said just to get Christian votes. A change in abortion legislature will have to be decided by the courts--BUT the next Pres will be appointing more Supreme Court positions, so that makes a difference there. However, having abortion legal doesn't cause abortions--the question is what are we as a society doing to discourage them and help pregnant mothers in bad situations, legal or not? And the better question is how are WE living as Christians and as the Church? Are WE living missional, just and holy lives in the midst of a corrupt generation? Whether the current administration supports the mission of Christ's kingdom or not? Sure, I want our nation to reflect Biblical values and we have a great framework for that, and we could do more in that arena and I will do my little part to work towards that--but I won't depend on the gov to do the job for me. Obama or McCain or whoever--I am serving the Lord, and may His kingdom come, His will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Amen!"
Monday, August 18, 2008
Cowboy Church Article
In regards to the article "Where Prayers Come With a Twang"
I wrote:
I read a reprint of this article in the Los Angeles Times, and was glad that cowboy churches were getting the exposure.(I don't attend a cowboy church myself, but I am familiar with them, having attended a few before.)
Initially I was frustrated, though, with the repetitive use of both Christian and "cowboy" cliches in the article, at the best, naive towards both cultures, at the worst almost disrespectful. I re-read the article here online, and then realized that the Times had edited it some for length, unfortunately weakening the article and leaving some rather broad statements unexplained.(Which, of course, you have no control over!) I asked my father, a well-known religious news journalist, if it was common for papers to do that, and he said yes, but was surprised that they did so considering that it was placed in the front section!
As for the original article by Torriero printed here, I realize that a journalist wants to be interesting and clever and readable, but I did roll my eyes at the statement "Hamson strikes the fear of God in his parishioners..." That is a strong statement, which is not the impression that I get from the description of Hamson in the article--that he's some fire-and-brimstone type of preacher. This, and other Christian cliches inappropriately used in the article (perhaps unintentionally) paint pastors and lay evangelical Christians as hokey, insincere, stupid, and/or subversive (all too common images in the press), and tend to spin what is a serious commitment for these people as a novelty. As a Christian I guess I just get tired of hearing these types of phrases coming from professional news agencies, who are usually careful and successful at treating other religious groups with respect--this protocol should include refraining from worn-out puns.
I work for the Autry National Center's Museum of the American West (so you know where I'm coming from with all of this) and I also get tired of so many ancient Western cliches. I can understand a few, but it seems like they fill this article, reinforcing the Hollywood version of the West over the real one. One point I don't understand is the section about religion in the "Wild West" (not exactly a technical term, but we get the point!). What was said is true, but then Torriero (or the article's editor) then jumps to the claim that contemporary cowboy churches embrace more of "entertainment's" version of the (mythic) West than "cowboy lore." What I don't understand here is not in inclusion of the historic change in the religious landscape of the West, but the lack of acknowledgement that cowboying is a job that, though at its greatest prominence in the 1880s, is still being done--it is a LIVING tradition, and Hollywood and Nashville don't own the trademark. Sure, the "cowboy" image extends far beyond wage-laborers on cattle ranches (and the broadening of that image into popular culture goes back to the 1880s! So, really, was it EVER possible to completely separate the two...), and it serves today as a broad icon for the Westerner, but my point is many of the people in this article ARE Westerners and/or are horsemen, farmers, etc. They ARE cowboys in the broad sense of the word, so how is this LIVING tradition defined or qualified by its earliest years or by Hollywood? In other words, why are modern-day cowboys (ranchers, horse people, rodeo performers, etc.) treated as second-rate, drugstore versions of the "real" thing? The cowboy isn't dead and what these people do IS cowboy culture--today. I'm just saying...
Thanks, again, for your article!
I wrote:
I read a reprint of this article in the Los Angeles Times, and was glad that cowboy churches were getting the exposure.(I don't attend a cowboy church myself, but I am familiar with them, having attended a few before.)
Initially I was frustrated, though, with the repetitive use of both Christian and "cowboy" cliches in the article, at the best, naive towards both cultures, at the worst almost disrespectful. I re-read the article here online, and then realized that the Times had edited it some for length, unfortunately weakening the article and leaving some rather broad statements unexplained.(Which, of course, you have no control over!) I asked my father, a well-known religious news journalist, if it was common for papers to do that, and he said yes, but was surprised that they did so considering that it was placed in the front section!
As for the original article by Torriero printed here, I realize that a journalist wants to be interesting and clever and readable, but I did roll my eyes at the statement "Hamson strikes the fear of God in his parishioners..." That is a strong statement, which is not the impression that I get from the description of Hamson in the article--that he's some fire-and-brimstone type of preacher. This, and other Christian cliches inappropriately used in the article (perhaps unintentionally) paint pastors and lay evangelical Christians as hokey, insincere, stupid, and/or subversive (all too common images in the press), and tend to spin what is a serious commitment for these people as a novelty. As a Christian I guess I just get tired of hearing these types of phrases coming from professional news agencies, who are usually careful and successful at treating other religious groups with respect--this protocol should include refraining from worn-out puns.
I work for the Autry National Center's Museum of the American West (so you know where I'm coming from with all of this) and I also get tired of so many ancient Western cliches. I can understand a few, but it seems like they fill this article, reinforcing the Hollywood version of the West over the real one. One point I don't understand is the section about religion in the "Wild West" (not exactly a technical term, but we get the point!). What was said is true, but then Torriero (or the article's editor) then jumps to the claim that contemporary cowboy churches embrace more of "entertainment's" version of the (mythic) West than "cowboy lore." What I don't understand here is not in inclusion of the historic change in the religious landscape of the West, but the lack of acknowledgement that cowboying is a job that, though at its greatest prominence in the 1880s, is still being done--it is a LIVING tradition, and Hollywood and Nashville don't own the trademark. Sure, the "cowboy" image extends far beyond wage-laborers on cattle ranches (and the broadening of that image into popular culture goes back to the 1880s! So, really, was it EVER possible to completely separate the two...), and it serves today as a broad icon for the Westerner, but my point is many of the people in this article ARE Westerners and/or are horsemen, farmers, etc. They ARE cowboys in the broad sense of the word, so how is this LIVING tradition defined or qualified by its earliest years or by Hollywood? In other words, why are modern-day cowboys (ranchers, horse people, rodeo performers, etc.) treated as second-rate, drugstore versions of the "real" thing? The cowboy isn't dead and what these people do IS cowboy culture--today. I'm just saying...
Thanks, again, for your article!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
