Penn states hosts Springsteen Symposium

As my friends know - more than they probably care to - I am a huge Bruce Springsteen fan. His music has deeply influenced my life and even played a role in my spiritual journey toward becoming a Christian. His work has become the subject of scholarly inquiry in a number of fields. Theologians also have written frequently about his use of religious imagery.

Now 14 papers will be presented on "Theology and Springsteen" at a symposium on the artist's work. The symposium to be held September 9-11 is being sponsored by the Monmouth University campus of Penn State. The papers invoke Tillich, liberation theology, narrative theology. Paul J. Contilino, co-editor of Christianity and Literature, is presenting 'The Cross of My Calling': The Christocentric imagination of Bruce Springsteen. In the paper's abstract, Contilino writes that he will be "employing William F. Lynch's influential Christ and Apollo, specifically employing his idea that the descent into the particular and finite generates the ascent upward into insight and redemption." (As any Springsteen fan would know, 'The Cross of My Calling' refers to the doomed firefighter in "The Rising" on his way to the World Trade Tower disaster: "Left the house this morning/ Bells ringing filled the air/Wearin' the cross of my calling."

In all, 150 papers are being presented under general topics that include "Redemption and Springsteen," "Comparative Studies and Springsteen," and "Springsteen as narrative poet."

Karl E. Martin, a professor of literature at Point Loma Nazarene University, will be putting his Ph.D. dissertation on Flannery O'Connor to use in a paper on Images of the Automobile in the writings of Flannery O'Connor and Bruce Springsteen.

The abstract for his paper reads:
In 1997, Springsteen said, "The really important reading that I did began in my late twenties, with authors like Flannery O'Connor. There was something in those stories of hers that I felt captured a certain part of the American character that I was interested in writing about." O'Connor presents characters who, foolishly from the narrator's perspective, associate automotive mobility with a certain kind of human freedom. Hazel Motes says, "Nobody with a good car needs to be justified." And Mr. Shiftlet, says, " . . . but the spirit, lady, is like an automobile: always on the move, always . . . " Cars play a central role in Springsteen's songs. My thesis is that Springsteen, like O'Connor, creates characters who believe they will be "saved" in some way by automotive mobility. Springsteen, like O'Connor, finds a way, from his narrative perspective and in the music, to undercut this belief in the saving power of mobility.

Speakers also will include photographer Frank Stefanko as well as rock critic and Springsteen hagiographer Dave Marsh. Participants can take a break from all the intellectual stimulation and enjoy some concerts, including Gary "U.S." Bonds, during the weekend as well. There also will be walking tours of Freehold, New Jersey, otherwise known as Mecca for those of us who love the Boss.

The full conference fee is $245, but the concerts are extra.

Faith and punditry

Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals has criticized Pat Robertson's comments, although saying they were overblown. Below is a part of a post from CT.

I am confused as to how Haggard can offer a pseudo-justification for Robertson's remarks by saying he wasn't speaking in the portion of the show that was focused on "Christian exhortation" but in "another section where he's a political pundit." Hasn't it been people such as Haggard and Robertson who have been saying you can't compartmentalize your faith, including in politics?

Haggard was scheduled to travel to Venezuela to offer an apology on behalf of evangelicals. By the way, is anyone surprised that Jesse Jackson is going to travel to Venezuela to meet with the dictator? I'm so glad we have him to heal our land - and the land of others. Perhaps Jackson and Haggard will have an opportunity to chat.

On CNN yesterday, Haggard criticized the remarks, but said the criticism was overblown:

I think you have to understand the context of it. You know his program has one section of it that's a Christian exhortation, and then another section where he's a political pundit. And I think what he was saying was, we have a looming problem down south, and there are several bad options there. And he's saying maybe the least of the bad options is to do something about the dictator. …

The First Amendment is wonderful. People have free speech privileges. He wasn't writing a memo to the White House recommending a public policy decision. He was not recommending something to the State Department. He was not exposing himself sexually on the platform the way Janet Jackson did. Instead, he was having a political discussion, where they were randomly working with some ideas. For Jesse Jackson [who called for the FCC to investigate the remarks] to exaggerate it this way is just as appalling as what Pat Robertson said, I think. … We're addressing it, we're not taking it lightly. Nobody is taking it seriously as a policy issue. So the system is working. Everything is fine. Nobody's going to assassinate this man. But we do realize he is a major problem. … Pat Robertson was wrong in recommending this. He was wrong in saying it. But he was not wrong in being able to just openly discuss it the way political pundits do all the time. Now, if you take his words as from a religious Christian leader, as a recommendation, then we have a problem. But I don't think that's what he did.

Jesus says Pat got it right

In a rare and exclusive interview with Under The Radar today, Jesus said that Pat Robertson was right to call for the assassination of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

"In fact, I told him to say it," said the Prince of Peace, smiling, "Pat would never tell anybody that. He likes to keep it a secret about how close we are."

But Jesus is speaking out about the relationship, even if Robertson never would. The Lord explained that in their daily conversations, he has been able talk with Robertson in a way he has been unable to with any other person in the last 2,000 years. "He really understands me. He does have ears to hear," Jesus said.

"We'll walk through the garden on Pat's mansion and just talk about all kinds of things. Some days I'll tell him the latest scheduled date of my return. Lately we've been talking a lot about the appointment of justices to your so-called Supreme Court. Then like the other day, we'll discuss who I want assassinated."

"There's a lot of give and take," Jesus said. "I'll suggest a despicable dictator, for example, but then Pat will remind me he has millions invested in the guy's government controlled business. So Pat will suggest somebody, and then we'll talk it over and make a decision together. I really value his opinion, but again, Pat's too humble to let anyone know that."

"Pat's able to understand and even trust me like few others. I've been able to teach my good friend that what so many people believe are my words in the Bible aren't really mine at all," Jesus said. "He knows what I truly truly said."

"People don't realize that your Scriptures went through so many editors," Jesus said. He leaned forward in his seat and added with obvious irritation, "The whole process became like a bad game of post office. I said one thing, and by the time those folks were done, I had been seriously misquoted."

"Take my Sermon on the Mount for example," Jesus said. "Matthew supposedly quoted me as saying, 'love your enemies.' Who in God's name would think I'd ever say something like that!"

"What I preached to the guys - and I mean I was preaching - 'You have heard it said, love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say, don't just hate them. Get a group of your beer buddies together, kidnap your enemy under the cover of darkness and then crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him!'"

"But somehow that all got twisted."

Innocent translation errors have not been the only problem in getting Jesus' real message across, he said. "There were other times when people just didn't like what I had to say and thought they knew so much better than me. You remember Peter and what a pain in the -- well I can't say it because I am Jesus after all - but you remember how he was one. Anyway, they deliberately misquoted me."

Jesus stated Mark changed his words when the Gospel writer set pen to papyrus. "That part about loving your neighbors as yourself - well, he didn't include the whole quote."

The Lord went on to explain, "What I said was 'Love your neighbor as yourself - except when your neighbor lives in a way that irritates you or says bad things about you. When that happens, get some of your beer-drinking buddies together, kidnap your neighbor under the cover of darkness and then crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him!'"

"But Peter told Mark to change that part because it seemed so un-Messiah like," Jesus added. "Then when Matthew and Luke got lazy and copied off Mark, people took it for the Gospel truth, like it was even my personal creed or something."

"When I pointed this out to Pat, he was able to understand why I wanted Chavez assassinated," Jesus said. "I love your country far more than any other on the earth. When I saw you letting that little Venezuelan dog sneer at you like that and jacking up his oil prices, I knew I couldn't let him mock my beloved like that. He had to die."

The Son of God went on to say how frustrated he was at the attacks by the liberal media on Robertson, a one-time presidential candidate for what Jesus referred to as "God's Own Party." He added, "I mean I picked him myself, but like always, the press refused to believe and just laughed at him."

Jesus also expressed his anger that "The media really fried Pat over his comments about 9-11. Remember how he said the terrorists were instruments of my dad's judgment because of all the feminists and homosexuals running freely through your country? Well who do you think told him to say that?"

"Don't they know that when they persecute one of my followers they persecute me?"

Jesus revealed for the first time that it was the media's treatment of Robertson that led to the creation of the FOX network news channel. "Dad said he was mad as hell, and he wasn't going to take it anymore," Jesus explained. "So he told the Holy Spirit to create a fair and balanced news station. With a breath of hot air there was FOX, and dad saw that it was good."

Jesus quickly ended the interview saying he didn't want to be late for his walk with Robertson because it frustrated the televangelist. "He has such a hold over me," Jesus said.

As he left, Jesus stopped at the door, turned and faced this reporter and said with a mischievous grin, "Wait until you hear what I tell him to say today."

Where are the Democrats

Columnist David Ignatius - who I'd never heard of before - questions where are the Democrats? Good Question.

When will the party return to standing for something, putting forth proposal rather than just saying we don't like George Bush?

Jim Wallis also has written an excellent column on the topic, cautioning the Democrats to be sure they have substance behind whatever language they use to reach disaffected voters.

Clowns on the left, Jokers on the right

Clowns on the left:

Having been caught in their lies, the folks at the National Abortion Rights Action League pulled their ads which falsely claimed Supreme Court nominee John Roberts supported people who bombed abortion clinics.

Jokers on the right:

Some prominent evangelical Christians are holding their second justice Sunday to urge people to pray and fight for a (very) conservative court. It's a fine-looking group of predominately well-to-do white men. And its so nice to see Tom DeLay, who must have an extra special interest in the courts these days, lending his ethical voice.

McLaren on "Becoming Convergent"

Brian McLaren, one of the leading thinkers in the Emerging Movement has started a three-part series on Becoming Convergent. The series will extend the rest of the week.

NARAL lies about Roberts

FactCheck.org, a non-partisan organization that investigates claims from across the political and social spectrum says the National Abortion Rights Action Leagues isn't even close to telling the truth about Suprement Court nominee John Roberts.

An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama .

The ad is false.

And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.

The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.

Anyone who is interested in investigating claims by public figures or groups should regularly check this web site or subscribe to its email list.

Wallis: Dems need substance not talk

Jim Wallis writes in a NY Times piece that Democrats need to back up any newfound god-talk with substance.

"Because the Republicans, with the help of the religious right, have captured the language of values and religion (narrowly conceived as only abortion and gay marriage), the Democrats have also been asking how to "take back the faith." But that means far more than throwing a few Bible verses into policy discussions, offering candidates some good lines from famous hymns, or teaching them how to clap at the right times in black churches. Democrats need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them."

I am glad to see Wallis speaking more forcefully about the Democrats and any desire to reach out to people of faith as more than just rhetoric. He has been much stronger in his criticism of the Religious Right while not attacking as publicly comments such as those made by Howard Dean and others.

Wallis has become the media darling of progressive evangelical Christians. What he has been saying isn't all that new, having been expounded on by the likes of Ron Sider and Tony Campolo for years. He just finally happens to be getting listened to. For that I am grateful.

Those who agree with Wallis also must be careful that they don't fall into the same hole as the Religious Right, who have made politics too much of its focus, according to the editor of Sojourners.

Peter Jennings

Peter Jennings will be missed.

He was an excellent journalist and one of the few mainstream journalists who tried to put news "in context."

Group: Circumcision a human rights violation

I'm guessing Abraham might have thought so at the time.

This makes for light-hearted reading because these people are serious.