Rich Religion

According to this research, it pays to be Hindu. This data shows that Hindus in USA have a higher level of education and the highest amount of over 75K earning individuals.  If you are bothered that your particular religion is not faring as well, its not that hard to reconcile this numbers and ameliorate your own relative religious position. Because we know that  God helps those who help themselves! Anyway, a quick recall of the basics of statistics will tip you off to the fact that there are significantly more Baptists still in USA than Hindus - and a larger sample number means that there is a greater chance of the that larger sample landing closer tot he mean (average). So multiple gods may not have as direct a correlation with wealth and education as it appears on this graphic. A smaller sample group landing on the higher education and more wealth side is significant since according to statistical theory they could just as easily land on the negative side. Interestingly, "the way of suffering" (Buddhism) leads to a nirvana of cash and degrees as well.
What might be a little more significant is that the health and wealth Pentecostals ought to check out what the Anglicans are doing cause they are kicking their blessed rear-ends. So take a moment and basque in your relative wealth and academic achievement - unless of course you are Jehovah's Witness - in which case...
Now snap out of it people. Seriously, isn't the whole point of religion supposed to be about being satisfied with the unexplainable truth - taken as faith? And isn't the reward of the afterlife the thing to strive for? Come on a little bit poorer and an little bit dumber never hurt anybody right? Ignorance is bliss and simplicity is true riches.
I think it is interesting that a rhetorical frame like this one can dance into the social head space and force education and wealth as a rubric of evaluation on religion. I think its cool our social sphere can be that banal. I think its perverse for those who might claim to hang onto any vestige of faith to exacerbate this issue further. So then what do you make of this post? God thing it goes mostly unread...

Culture, nature, and mediation « The Immanent Frame

Culture, nature, and mediation « The Immanent Frame

The article/review starts like this:

"religion is about mediation. Ironically so, because it is about the divine; but because the divine is never directly available, religion must instead be about how the divine is indirectly manifest. Thus, as Régis Debray has shown in his God: an Itinerary, monotheism, which is apparently the most other-worldly and non-mediated of creeds, has had to identify itself in concrete terms, which may bizarrely include preference for some landscapes over others, or for association with some animals over others."

Here is one of the tricky dilemmas that this article points to: If as it seems Pentecostalism has done more to ameliorate the "conditions of abjection" faced by the world's poor, can a credible claim be mounted that this brand of Christianity holds legitimacy for a more just world.

"However, Pentecostalism has by and large endorsed the capitalist market and the gospel of success, even if it has also developed many compensating voluntary welfare ventures, which should by no means be despised."

The author contends that mediation is a central feature in solving this dilemma. This is fascinating stuff to be sure. But it is worth paying attention to for more than just the fun of playing on some intellectual monkey bars - no pun intended. People who care about how religion manifests real change in the world ought to think about this stuff. I'm not talking about evaluating Pectecostalism over against other denominations (although clearly that discussion is available). I am suggesting that in the efforts to affect the betterment of the oppressed masses (whom we should acknowledge are oppressed in large part due to the ideologies that support our relative affluence) religion ought to be aware of how powerfully they can entrench ideological frames that serve to reinforce the conditions of abjection.
This article and the material it reviews is well worth the read...

parenting and your worldview

You’ve no doubt wondered how you got to thinking about the world in the way that you do. Turns out your worldview is not really as ‘yours’ as you might like to believe. No need to be alarmed though – it’s not really supposed to be yours. At least not in the way we’ve imagined.
The influence of our parents shapes most of how we look at life (the big questions of meaning and meta-physics, moral codes, social norms). Brain researchers like Dr. Ian Wishaw (one of my professors and a leading brain researcher in Canada) will tell you that most of the neural pathways in your brain are established by the time you reach about 4 or 5 years old (right about the time when language acquisition reaches it ‘boiling point’). Inevitably then the core of our worldview has already been established before we are even aware of us needing or wanting to have one. Sure a child cannot express all of the metaphysical concepts that are expected out of an adult but the foundational neural triggers are already in place to guide the individual toward a specific point of view. Knowing this can help us immensely as parents.
As a reasonable parent, I might be worried that my influence might unduly sway my children toward a particular perspective without the advantages of critical thought on the part of my children. There is a school of thought that advocates critical ‘free’ thinking as a means of allowing children to choose either a religious or an irreligious perspective. The use of the word free is hardly honest when we look at the science. We just are not free thinkers – able to think of anything we wish – we are indelibly constrained by the physical capacity and the environmental influence of our given context. We are not free to reason any which way we want to. But here is what is possible. It is possible for parents to give their children critical thinking skills that actively challenge the perspectives that they have received through parental influence and those they might encounter in various arenas of life.
Ryan’s post here serves to debunk some of the prevailing logic in some of the atheist camps that suggests that free thinking will inevitably lead to an irreligious worldview. Ryan aptly points out how biased the illusion of free thinking really is but he also makes a great point about the need for parents to accept the choices our children make even when they are not the ones we would have preferred. What he doesn’t point out (but I am almost convinced he would agree with) is that every worldview must make a step of faith. Faith is not just relegated to a belief in God. It takes just as much faith to figure we came from some random accident. This should not surprise us since we know that so much of what we receive as worldview as children has to be accepted outright since it is hardly testable by a preadolescent brain. We put faith in our parents and accept their influence. Dale McGowan gets that part of the story right in his latest video on Parenting Beyond Belief. You should watch his video so I have included it here…

I think McGowan gets it in many ways but I do not agree with his parenting strategy around influencing ideological (and ultimately religious) views. His tactic is to frame every conviction he espouses with a caveat that it is merely his opinion and that it should be evaluated against other perspectives on the matter. He banks on the phenomenon of reaction that is typical (and well documented) in the adolescent years where the child will shape their own convictions against those handed to them by their parents. I feel sorry for him. It seems he needs to apologize to his kids for holding a conviction – convictions that I am sure have been found to be very practically useful in his own life. What he has done in my view is devalue even if ever so slightly his own views so that influence that he claims for himself is lost. What will happen when his kids meet someone who is not willing to caveat their convictions in the same way?. Enter Television Evangelist…
I think McGowan is right to suggest that as parents we anticipate the reactive stage and I really like the idea of encouraging our children to encounter other worldviews early on. I also think it is imperative to create the space for our children to make ideological mistakes-to espouse ideological perspectives that are less than accurate. What the child should be aware of early on is that any perspective they choose to hold will meet with a challenge. But instead of a caveat on my beliefs I want to create an atmosphere where my children are already at an early age willing and able to challenge me on my convictions and I can challenge theirs. I said to a friend of mine recently that I want my kids to be exposed to the big questions of life first of all in their own home. What I mean is that there is no way that some pot-shotting atheist philosophy prof ought to be able to gain the upper hand on my child when they enter university. There should be no way that my child should become entranced by the magical spells of the word/faith brand of religion. If my child chooses to accept any of those options I want to know that they have fought hard critically to dispute and rebuff and actively engage the claims of these perspectives. Oh and by the way I expect no less should they choose to follow convictions similar to mine.
I have no qualms telling my kids what I believe because they are my convictions. I also show them that from time to time I am able to admit that I have gotten it wrong when a better argument has been presented. I don’t have to apologize for by opinions or denounce them as trivial since they are my own. I feel good about what I believe and still will come to believe. I have a really hard time with arrogant people who claim to have found ‘the truth’ and refuse to consider the relevant arguments against the position they have taken. I think it is possible to hold convictions strongly while still being humble enough to admit that you are wrong. I hope that is what my kids will see in me. I hope they are willing push and challenge and fight for every inch of ideological ground they gain. “I think that as parents, we do have an obligation to teach our children to think carefully and critically and to honour the choices they make.” (Ryan) The key here is in the last part of the statement. Ideological perspectives are irrelevant if they do not affect action. And conviction should match the willingness to act on those perspectives.
For now though, I am willing to run around the house in my underwear and play my music too loud cause after all they are going to rebel anyways right?

a little help here...

We recently had a wonderful visit with an old friend. We laughed and tossed around the obligatory reminiscences after a few months of not seeing each other. Inevitably as it seems most conversations seem eventually come around to talking about “Holy Things” (Nacho Libre ref.). Religion, church etc seem to crop up a lot in conversations that we have with people in general. My friend it would be fair to say has wandered around a bit spiritually – disillusioned by so much of the institutional expressions of church but certainly not abandoning faith at all. This is a smart talented person. One statement that my friend made caused me to extra intrigue in our conversation about God. In the course of our conversation my friend said something like this, “As far as faith goes, I pay attention to my heart and not my head. I’ve had so many questions lately and if I would have paid attention to my head I probably would not be a Christian right now.”
There is a lot to take away from a statement like that. First of all, it is a good reminder that we all approach the concepts of faith in nuanced pathways that involve both intellectual arguments and appealing emotional tones. It makes me wonder if sometimes there has been too much of a focus on thinking the right way or feeling a certain way in order to fully identify with the believing community. Modernity has served the church well in raising the requirements for thinking the right way as a measure of the suitability for participation in the body.
Second the statement is also a reminder of the fact that faith is far more complex than it used to be. I suppose this is due to the influences of a post-modern culture. Engaging with faith is not as simple as cognitive assent to 4 ‘spiritual’ laws or a codified catechism. There are significant questions that affect morality, doctrinal position and the like. This is not your Mom and Dad’s church/religion anymore. And if you still face the requirement to ‘think the right way’ you could be in a rough shape for a long while – trying to wrap your head around big issues like homosexuality and violence…
Third this statement teases out a rather scathing indictment on the body of Christ. Consider that there are numerous scriptural references that speak to the simplicity of following after the Rabbi from Nazareth (we are to be like children quickly springs to mind). Could it be that the church has complexified the essence of faith in all of its theological and doctrinal discussions to the point where it really remains out of reach? What I mean is that perhaps the church is guilty of the same folly that earned the Pharisees Jesus’ sharpest criticism, by making faith unnecessarily complicated for the average individual to engage with. Here I wonder if the disconnect is at the point where the actions of the church do not match what it is claiming to teach.
On the other hand perhaps this statement is also fairly revelatory about the mode of engagement that at least a certain group of people are inclined to pursue. Maybe this statement is a self-condemnation of sorts that reveals the instant-ness that we have all come to expect out of in our culture – a lack of willingness to engage with the deep thing of God, if you will.
All of these wonderings are significant if one supposes that the statement above is somehow indicative of the way (some) people are feeling/thinking. Some of Reg Bibby’s work (Restless Gods) tells us that more readily identifying as religious people and that the trajectory of secularism projected by the doomsayers of years ago are out to lunch. However even though people are identifying themselves as religious they are typically staying away from attendance and involvement in local institutions in greater numbers than before. Could it be that my friends statement is a least a contributing factor in these trends? I think it is worth exploring.
Ruminating on this statement has left me in a melancholy frame. It serves as an interesting mirror to reflect on the years of ministry that lie behind me. I am also prone to wonder if churches are paying attention to stuff like this and if they might be interested in taking the role of the presumably spiritually mature agent in this faith engagement. What I mean is that the church should take the burden of responsibility in addressing any stumbling blocks which might lie between apparently interested individuals and the faith in Christ that they claim to be purveyors of…
Here’s my goal to look for places where the body of Christ is doing this well – removing obstacles…(Humming: Arcades Fire's Intervention)

Words on a bus…

Interesting discussion here, here, here and here has pricked a few thoughts that I'd rather not clutter up someone else's blog with. So I will puke it out here.

The flap is over a slogan on a bus in England (which we have learned will make its appearance here in Canada shortly as well). One aspect of this situation that seems under represented is what actual effect a slogan such as this has in social currency.

I begin with the effect of advertising is social structures. It is often argued (and often most vehemently in Christian right-wing discourse) that advertising is the culprit for the moral degradation of our social framework. At advertising's feet is often also laid the core ethos of our consumerist culture. These arguments are highly flawed. It is not that advertising plays no role in fashioning the mores of our social identity. Rather it needs to be understood in the complementary role that it actually plays along side the prevailing values of our culture. If fact a closer look at the data (stuff like the recent 2008 Canada Youth Survey (Bibby)) suggests that advertising is highly distrusted by most adolescents. The argument stands on the fact that teenagers and adults report a lifestyle that is busier than ever. Bibby reports that generally speaking people have asked ultimate questions (of life's purpose, life after death, etc) at a fairly consistent rate over the years – between 80 and 90 %. In the most recent survey he has seen a significant drop in the percentage of youth asking ultimate questions. His conclusion is that this maybe mostly due to the warp speed of our society. When adolescents were asked about the institutions that they trusted the most and the least advertising occupied the lowest rating. Again Bibby points to the speed of life and the available option that teens have to access the media that they want. Embedded advertising in movies and TV shows is the sad consequence of this. All this to say that in the end a slogan on the side of the bus is going to have a negligible effect on society as a whole –especially the impressionable minds of our young people. This will hardly register on the collective consciousness (save the few youth groups that end up buying the Josh McDowell "How to Combat Bus Signs in Your City" Campaign DVD study guide).

Frankly, I wonder whether drawing out the controversial nature of this slogan is giving this campaign far too much credit. The content of the sign is suspect–sure–but isn't dignifying such a feeble project with our hot indignation just as suspect. We live in an out-dated perspective of the world if we think that conventional advertising schemes like these will actually affect any noticeable aspect of our social fabric. Budweiser admit that there has been no verifiable increase in the sale of their products due to the advertising campaign they mount each year at the Super Bowl. If those millions of dollars can't sell beer better – how do we actually think that pink slogans on a bus will sell atheism any better…

My Astro

It's been running rough! To be honest I can't tell you what is wrong with it. It shakes and shivers when I brake. I can smell gasoline every time I step out of the vehicle. There are small but growing spots appearing on the concrete under where my van rests over night. It's time to take it in. Not too long from now I will need to jam my family into it and head up north to Red Deer to visit my in-laws. Now I'm not clueless about vehicles but you could hardly translate my knowledge into any sort of real advantage when it comes to repair. There's too much that can go wrong and I certainly do not want to make my situation worse.

So I gotta take my beater into the garage – it has to be done. Now I have worked really hard to develop a relationship with a garage that I feel that I can trust. But I can't help thinking that I am sorta getting screwed – every time I leave. And the bills are never small. I should say that I know enough that if my mechanic were to suggest that my bumper needed replacing I could tell he was shafting me. But even if it is not something as obvious as that I have to admit that I am pretty suspicious every time I get the bill. That's partially due to my ignorance – but it's mostly due to my position – especially that of a customer. By bringing my vehicle in I am already giving over authority to my mechanic to tell me what is wrong. Sure I can tell him what the symptoms are but the basic reason I am bringing my van in is because I am unable (whether due to time or expertise or ability) to fix the vehicle myself. So he holds the conch. "You need a new gympson saddle on your left value deliberator!" he says. "Alright," I say, caring less at this point about whether I can figure out what his terms mean than what it is going to cost me. You know what is weird – the more the bill is the more I wonder about my mechanic integrity. And he's the good mechanic – don't even get me started on Canadian Tire! One time I even had a tow truck drag my van in - really reaching for the pity response. Stupid thing was that was the highest bill I ever paid on the van and you know what it never has run the same since. I'm the customer.

Then something totally weird happened to me. This guy flagged me down on the highway between Lethbridge and Coaldale. He came up to me – total stranger – and said he had been following me since the lights. He said he had noticed my van shaking as I pulled up to the light and said he could tell the engine was running rough. He asked me if I was looking for some help. I jumped out of the van not sure what to make of this guy but his diagnosis seemed trustworthy (not because it was any different than that of my mechanic but precisely because it came unsolicited). After some conversation and some rooting around under the hood he asked me if he could adjust the carburetor on the van. Then he said, "Listen here's my number – call me and let me know if that gas smell is still showing. And if you want we can talk about some time when I could come over and we could look at the vehicle in depth." While I was trying to wipe off the grease stain on his business card so I could put it in my wallet, he disappeared back into his truck. When I got home – the smell was still there but the van was running more smoothly – it did not want to stall mid-idle. I think I might give this guy a call…

Wouldn't it be nice if this is how the story goes? See what I mean.

34X25X36

If you haven't seen this as you scroll through the featured section of Youtube you might be interested in this provocative piece on body image and relationship to the arts...

the sound of one's own voice

"These anthropologist0s are like monks of scholarship who, having made the discipline their divinity, accept celibacy and dedicate themselves to the cloistered life." -(characterization of anthropologists in popular fiction, as 'revealed' by Jeremy MacClancy in a short essay entitled THE LITERARY IMAGE OF ANTHROPOLOGISTS)

It struck me how it's not just anthropologist who can be recognized for having made, "the discipline their divinity."

women in the mosques

For years we (Mennonite Brethren at least) have been discussing and debating the role of women in ministry.
In our sociology class we have been discussing the social stratification that occurs through the constructs of religion. One of the huge areas (especially for our prof) has been the gender stratifications that religious institutions tend to create. This is a prevasive issue accross many of the religious vains that exist. It was especially interesting to watch this video in class to get some of the same issues we've been talking about in the MB from the perspective of a Canadian Muslim community.
Zarqa Nawaz, the writer/director of this film, is one of the consulting writers for Little Mosque on the Prairie.
So here are parts of the documentary:

Here's the links to the other portions of this film:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cRAtRQsiuqI
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mlx_QrmC9IE
so there you go.....

Some quotes and thoughts

On Scandrette’s Soul Graphitti which I am just getting around to completing beside the pool this week.
“As I think about it now, there is more than a little irony in the fact that we sat passively in a regal sanctuary listening to messages based on the adventures of a homeless bearded prophet who wondered the cities and countryside caring for the poor and healing the sick and inviting people to follow his example.”
Next he compares a sentimental approach to faith and cynical one:
Sentimental ‘folk’ religion: Jesus often functions as a ghost or lucky charm.
“In some Christian traditions, children are hurried along to embrace Jesus as personal saviour without the space for genuine curiosity... People raised in such practices are often robbed of a genuine inquisitiveness about Jesus-because they know too much too soon.”
A cynical approach to religion: Jesus is the “warmongering Christmas tree icon of America, a fairytale god only believed in by the simple, uneducated, or politically conservative.”
“Although they prided themselves on being open minded, my classmates were nevertheless blinded by the intolerance of inbred cynicism.”
Lots to chew on here: hurrying kids in ‘personal salvation’ and out of a genuine wonder is something I see us still doing in some ways (even with programs like VBS – gulp!).
Default cynicism can be equally as preventive in discovering the real essence of the Gospel.

Ghandi seems to be rubbing off...

Ghandi was quoted as saying: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Seems like more than just Ghandi feels that way...
I guess the real question is just how appealing should Jesus Christ be. There is definately a sense that in some ways Jesus can be both repulsive and attractive - maybe even at the same time. If nothing else this type of reflection must cause us to consider whether the image of Jesus that we are displaying is accurate.
ht: Dan Kimball

Some friends of mine have been talking...

about how pluralism is affecting our lives - especially as we try to live them out day to day. Here and here.
And I was listening to John Mayer and I am starting to wonder if I am, "lack of coherence or consistency with respect to one’s views about the world." Well not really so much. but check out these lyrics and then if you want to follow the link to watch a video performance of the song...
Is there anyone who
Ever remembers changing there mind from
The paint on a sign?
Is there anyone who really recalls
Ever breaking rank at all
For something someone yelled real loud one time
Everyone believes
In how they think it ought to be
Everyone believes
And they're not going easily
Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching under water
You never can hit who you're trying for
Some need the exhibition
And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon
For the war that's raging on inside
Everyone believes
From emptiness to everything
Everyone believes
And no ones going quietly
We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for
What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Belief can

Video Clip of song on YouTube

Not sure that I fully grasp what Mayer's point is entirely here but let me suggest a few things.

So much of western culture is cerebral - head based. Think about it. This gets really evident when it comes to popular culture. Societal distinctions are made on the basis of musical tastes, habitual Television viewing experiences (shows you watch regularly), reaction to movies, pundits perspectives on politics, talking points, 'branding' as a marketing strategy (Mac/PC; Nike/RBK; Telus/Bell), choice of sports team selected to win pugalistic ball game (Colts by the way), etc., etc., What these factors all have in common is that they are essentially things that we 'receive' through our senses and interact with in our brain. Even jumping around at a concert, is, at the core, an experiential element. These are not things we actually do. They are essentially things that happen to us...

In my view these are societal distinctions are becoming more and more important strata of identification. This is not how it used to be. Much more importance was put on one's ability to accomplish certain tasks. Vocational roles, gender function roles, financial status roles, etc., Now it's not that these things are no longer important but they are lessening. And things like keeping up with the lastest television show, or having the right brand of clothing are more important.

Problems around pluralism are complicated when they are related to the cognitive aspects of human experience. When one of the main functions of societal identity and one's place in it is the determination of what point of view we are going to take on this or that, we are dealing with pluralism in only one dimension.

As far as Christianity is concerned, for as long as our focus is going to be on trying to convince people to think the right thoughts, we will struggle in our culture. When we decide to be obedient to the truth we know and put into practice the best way to live - I think we will struggle less with how alarming pluralism seems to be in culture.

Luke 7:35 - "Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children."Otherwise said, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Eugene Peterson

I think this is what John Mayer is getting at here. Everyone is competing for brain space over what is the right way to think. Yet ironically for all the energy wasted on convincing people's brains our actions seem to tell the most gruesome tale about what we really think. Of course it would be stupid to shut off our brains and stop doing all this wild and wacky theology and ideology. But it might be better for us to remember what kind of pudding we actually taste like...

History of religion in 90 seconds

ht: Sterling
check this out! very interesting stuff here...