It has been a hard, long winter here in America's heartland. But it seems, as the end of April is quickly approaching, that spring has finally arrived. And for that, I am quite thankful!
One of the great things about living somewhere where you can experience all four seasons is that you can be sure that no matter how long winter is, spring will come. For many, spring is a reminder of renewal and rebirth. You can see it in the plants and trees, and of course in the grass that once again needs to be mowed. But for me, this spring has also led to a rebirth in reviews of my book on Mainline Christianity. Last month I recounted the review that appeared in Lutheran Quarterly, but just this week--as I mark the two year anniversary of the publication of the Mainline, I am pleased to pass along that two more reviews have appeared!
The first is from Anglican & Episcopal History (Volume 83, March 2014). Full disclosure, the first scholarly article I ever published (on Indianapolis's Christ Church Cathedral and the 1960s) appeared in A&E History as did my very first (and several since) book reviews. The review for my book though was written by Justus D. Doenecke of the New College of Florida and is paired with David Hollinger's After Cloven Tongues of Fire. It rightly points out a few minor misspellings (the kinds of things even authors, editors, and spell check can miss), but also acknowledges (as some other reviews I think tend to miss) that not only does it talk of decline of the Old Mainline, but also "where we are now" (to borrow his phrase) including the emergence of the New Mainline. For that, I am indebted to Professor Doenecke.
Because I am on the book review distribution list for A&E History, I knew that my book had been sent to the editors and might be reviewed. As such, while I was surprised to see it in print, the surprise was one of not knowing if/when it would appear--not the surprise of not expecting it to possibly happen. That was not the case for the second review, however. One of the lessons I learned fairly early on in graduate school, about the same time that my first article appeared in A&E History was how fractured and specialized academia has become. There are so many journals, representing virtually every facet of every branch of every department that it is a daunting task to know them all. However, because there are so many journals, it also means that if you are an author, your book can end up getting reviewed in many different places -- including in journals you might not normally read. Such is the case for the second review of the Mainline that appeared this month, in the journal of the Religious Research Association, the Review of Religious Research (March 2014).
The review was written by John P. Marcum, who notes another point I hope other readers have picked up on -- that the book is intended to be a starting point, an overview, a means to launch further studies. He does take issue (perhaps the most pointed, though it is fairly argued) with the fact that I am an historian and did not spend (as I might have, had I been either trained differently or was coming at the topic from a different discipline) as much time as he would have liked utilizing "sociological research." But what I most appreciated about Marcum's lengthy review (all to often a rarity itself in academia -- where reviews are often capped at 500-750 words) was how he ended it. And so, I'll end this post by quoting his review:
"Notwithstanding such issues, there is much to appreciate in this book. It provides a useful, concise history of the American Mainline. Readers may want more details, or disagree with some arguments, but Mainline Christianity provides a thoughtful, reasoned, and focused overview of this fascinating segment of American religious life."
Friday, April 25, 2014
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The Shield, not the Ark
Entertainment dollars can be scarce to come by and should be used wisely. Last weekend, I had a choice to make. My son and I were going to have a "boys afternoon" and we were going to see a movie. Our choices were "Noah" or "Captain America: The Winter Soldier." I opted to take him to see Cap without a second's hesitation.
It wasn't out of hand because of the debate swirling around "Noah." Sure, I was more than aware of it (you can read posts for and against the film here, here, here, and here). I don't expect a Hollywood movie to ever capture a Biblical story in such away that theologians, pastors, priests, bishops, ministers, deacons, elders, and laity all and everywhere would put their stamp of approval on. Talk about your impossible tasks(!), especially since we haven't even gotten beyond the "Christian" section of the audience demographic to include people of other faiths (Noah, after all, appears not just in the Christian Bible, but also plays a part in the Jewish and Islamic faiths as well), let alone non-religious persons who just might want to go see a Hollywood blockbuster starring Russell Crowe! Furthermore, in approaching such a film there is sure to be some "artistic license" taken, since the Bible isn't exactly a day-by-day diary of Noah's journey (before, during, or after his time on the ark). For the faithful to expect it to be both "faithful" and "accurate" is almost an impossibility, even if (spoiler alert) there weren't giant rock monsters involved!
All that's fine and well. Maybe there is an argument to be made to seeing "Noah." Maybe the artistic decisions and theological discussions are worth having. Maybe it is enough to get a big name director and stars to talk about faith at all in an age of secularism. But those aren't the kinds of debates and discussions I wanted to have with my little man. He's to young to grasp fully all those ends and outs on the level (especially the theological) they deserve.
But he isn't to young to understand good and evil. He isn't to young to understand that people make choices that have consequences. He isn't to young to understand that ideals matter. He isn't to young to understand that standing up for what you believe in might require pain and suffering on your part (and might be painful--both mentally and physically, as well as cost you people you thought were your friends). Nor is he to young to believe in heroes. And for all those reasons, not to mention that I've been a Captain America fan since I was about his age, we went to see "Captain America 2."
Now, did all those messages sink into my little man's head? I don't know. But we did have a good time together, and maybe that matters even more. We did have a good discussion about some of the issues raised, and how they were different than the cartoon version of events he knew (the unfortunately cancelled Avengers: Earths Mightiest Heroes)....indeed, someday, we might even talk about the "artistic license" that was employed blending several comic book story lines into one movie. But that, perhaps like "Noah," can wait for another day. For me, what we had last weekend as father and son (not to mention that "Captain America 2" was just an awesome movie!) more than justified my entertainment money.
It wasn't out of hand because of the debate swirling around "Noah." Sure, I was more than aware of it (you can read posts for and against the film here, here, here, and here). I don't expect a Hollywood movie to ever capture a Biblical story in such away that theologians, pastors, priests, bishops, ministers, deacons, elders, and laity all and everywhere would put their stamp of approval on. Talk about your impossible tasks(!), especially since we haven't even gotten beyond the "Christian" section of the audience demographic to include people of other faiths (Noah, after all, appears not just in the Christian Bible, but also plays a part in the Jewish and Islamic faiths as well), let alone non-religious persons who just might want to go see a Hollywood blockbuster starring Russell Crowe! Furthermore, in approaching such a film there is sure to be some "artistic license" taken, since the Bible isn't exactly a day-by-day diary of Noah's journey (before, during, or after his time on the ark). For the faithful to expect it to be both "faithful" and "accurate" is almost an impossibility, even if (spoiler alert) there weren't giant rock monsters involved!
All that's fine and well. Maybe there is an argument to be made to seeing "Noah." Maybe the artistic decisions and theological discussions are worth having. Maybe it is enough to get a big name director and stars to talk about faith at all in an age of secularism. But those aren't the kinds of debates and discussions I wanted to have with my little man. He's to young to grasp fully all those ends and outs on the level (especially the theological) they deserve.
But he isn't to young to understand good and evil. He isn't to young to understand that people make choices that have consequences. He isn't to young to understand that ideals matter. He isn't to young to understand that standing up for what you believe in might require pain and suffering on your part (and might be painful--both mentally and physically, as well as cost you people you thought were your friends). Nor is he to young to believe in heroes. And for all those reasons, not to mention that I've been a Captain America fan since I was about his age, we went to see "Captain America 2."
Now, did all those messages sink into my little man's head? I don't know. But we did have a good time together, and maybe that matters even more. We did have a good discussion about some of the issues raised, and how they were different than the cartoon version of events he knew (the unfortunately cancelled Avengers: Earths Mightiest Heroes)....indeed, someday, we might even talk about the "artistic license" that was employed blending several comic book story lines into one movie. But that, perhaps like "Noah," can wait for another day. For me, what we had last weekend as father and son (not to mention that "Captain America 2" was just an awesome movie!) more than justified my entertainment money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)