The word “Anthropocene” has been showing up quite a bit lately.For a period of many years I was an avid, self-taught amateur geologist.In my dreams I still am, I guess.My interest in the ages of rocks began when I, like Charles Lyell, began to consider the implications of their extreme longevity.The Bible, of course, famously intimates we live in a comparatively new neighborhood.Having grown up believing that literally and firmly, and also having started a modest fossil collection, I failed to see the conflict.I mean, there were fossils right down there by the river.Tons of them.Some Young Earth Creationists had already begun, by that point, to suggest they’d arisen because of Noah’s flood, but dinosaurs still seemed to be a problem.In many ways rocks broke me out of my fundamentalist stupor.
While at Nashotah House I taught electives on Genesis 1-11.I read about the geologic ages of the planet and would fall into Devonian dreams of a world entirely different from ours—a world in which there was no Bible for there were no humans to make God in their image.I knew that we lived in the Quaternary Period of the Holocene Era.I don’t think the term Anthropocene was in wide use then.Parsing it is simple enough—it is the “human age.”The age in which the planet was, has been, and is being altered by human behavior. There’s no agreed-up start date for the Anthropocene, but it will likely be set in the twentieth century; the twentieth century in our way of counting.There have been millions of centuries before that.
A couple of weekends back I attended a church program on plastics.These useful polymers are deeply, deeply integrated into our lives and are promoted by the far too powerful petroleum industry.The problem with plastics is that they break down and invade the bodies of animals and humans.And although they do decompose it takes many centuries for them to do so.Naming the Anthropocene is an effort to get us to see that a human perspective is far too brief to deal with the many issues we raise.Our practices on this planet will likely not destroy the earth, but they may very well make it uninhabitable by us, or by creatures we like to see.Life is persistent, and rock lasts for eons.Even stone’s not eternal, however, and the idea of the Anthropocene is to get us to look at ourselves and realize that our use of this planet, as toxic as it is, is shortsighted.We will someday be the fossils under a bridge long crumbled to dust for those in the future who know of no such thing as Genesis. Perhaps we should act like it.
I am not a conservative.There, I’ve said it.You have very little control over who your parents are or how they raise you.As I confessed here many times, I was raised in a conservative Christian home of the fundamentalist stripe.Like most kids scared of Hell I took it all very seriously.It is the reason I followed the career path—or perhaps career swamp trek—that I have.In any case, the other day I was looking through a Baker Academic catalogue.Baker, in case you don’t follow the high drama of the publishing industry, is one of the many Christian publishing houses with roots in Grand Rapids, Michigan.Like most publishers in that collective, it tends toward the conservative end of the theological spectrum.As I flipped through I noticed bio after bio of authors with Ph.D.s from Edinburgh, Cambridge, and other prestigious universities in the United Kingdom.
I hadn’t been warned, you see.Many conservatives who want a doctorate study in the UK because they can do so without taking all those classes that will make them examine the Bible critically.That’s not why I went to Edinburgh, but I can see how it might look like that from the outside.I went to Grove City College—a bastion of conservatism.(I was raised that way, remember?)My next educational move should give the lie to my attempt to remain conservative; Boston University School of Theology was considered the most liberal United Methodist seminary in the pre-Internet days.I attended for that very reason.Edinburgh, my true alma mater, was selected because they offered a scholarship that made it possible for a poor kid to finish a doctorate.I wasn’t conservative when I went, and I wasn’t conservative when I came out.
I didn’t get the memo, I guess.The sneaking suspicion that I might be conservative has dogged my career.My dissertation can be read that way, but it’s not a conservative argument.I merely suggested the decision to marry Yahweh off to Asherah was a bit hasty, based on the actual evidence.I’m all for married deities—they tend to be less frustrated toward humanity.Maybe the Almighty could speak to Mrs. God about correcting these worries about what I “really believe.”I went to a conservative college to learn—there were a fair number of attempts to indoctrinate there, but if you thought about things you could see through them, even with a fundie upbringing.But as I thumb through the catalogue I can see how perceptions can work against you, especially when your first job is at a conservative seminary, eh, Mrs. God?
Human rights ought to be fairly simple.The recognition that all people are human is complicated by that infamous human construct of money, even when autocracy’s involved.I recently became aware of the plight of the Uyghurs.If it were not for the efforts of some local faith communities, I would never have heard of them.The Uyghurs are a Turkic population in what is now northwest China—a disputed area that has fallen under one of the superpowers of the Asian world.Muslim by heritage, the Uyghurs fall into the category of peoples adhering to an organized religion, which the government of China has consistently resisted—indeed, feared.The current plight of the Uyghurs is that they are facing “ethnic cleansing” by the Chinese government, which uses claims of terrorism to lock at least hundreds of thousands (perhaps significantly more) Uyghurs into “reeducation camps.”
Like most governments with secrets to hide, China does not permit foreign journalists or academics into these camps.Children are being separated from parents—those of us in the United States would be well served to pay attention to this—so that the young may be culturally assimilated into the China that Beijing envisions.The Uyghurs, like the Tibetans, are seeking international political protections and recognition.Minority groups like this easily fall under threat.In many communities men are taken to the reeducation camps (from which they never come out) and their families are supplied with a male Chinese boarder who watches to make sure they no longer adhere to their Islamic faith.Reports from those who visit the region demonstrate how much at threat all of us are from autocratic governments, especially when other governments are easily bought.
We in the western world are prone to accept the propaganda that Islam is a terrorist religion.It is not.Most people are surprised to learn that the nation with the highest Muslim population is Indonesia.Iran is not even in the top five.Iraq is not in the top ten.Our western bias blinds us to the religious realities, and diversities, of east and south Asia.China, however, has long repressed organized religions, making it irresistible to many Christian missionaries.It has, despite being the home of Daoism and Confucianism, become hostile to movements that allow people to organize.Religions, of course, have long been such organizing movements.If we do not support the rights of other religions, especially under the whims of autocracies—which are growing even in “the free world”—then we are gazing at our own future.
Maybe you’ve experienced it too.The sense of change in a large city like New York is palpable.Although I don’t commute in much any more, I noticed it when I made daily treks to the city—change is constant.If the skyline’s forever evolving, on street level things are more than keeping pace.In the seven years of my daily commuting I saw buildings built and razed in the same location.Scaffolding is a constant hazard.Public art pieces are placed and then replaced.Change.I was reading about Yijing, better known as I Ching, the other day.One of the spiritual classics of China, this “Book of Changes” reflects a worldview common in eastern Asia that is quite at odds with that that developed in ancient Greece.Many Greeks believed permanence was reality, those in China who read the spiritual masters believed that change was reality.The older I get the more I think the author(s) of Yijing got it right.
I’m not an expert on the religions of southern or eastern Asia, but I have studied the major ones.To those outside the field of religious studies, it may be surprising that the field is as large as it is.In the United States alone there are an estimated 40,000 denominations, and that’s just within Christianity.To be an expert in any one takes years of study.Add in the many religions of other locations, such as Africa and Asia, and you’ve got more than one lifetime’s worth of work lined up.A common—the most common, in fact—course in collegiate religion curricula is “World Religions.”I’ve taught it myself.The problem is nobody’s an expert in all of them.Still, I found reading about what used to be called “eastern religions” (with that poisonous cultural bias that the unchanging west is the correct vantage point) full of surprises.
Scientists well into last century liked the idea of a steady-state universe.Permanence.When Edwin Hubble noticed other galaxies were moving away from ours (and, by the way, first noticed that there were other galaxies), the Big Bang theory developed to explain this motion. Change, it turns out, is constant.It may be slow at times, and at others it’s like the skyline of a major city like New York, shifting several times in a single lifespan.I’ve read some of the spiritual classics (in translation) and I always come away with a new sense of wonder about the many ways of understanding the world.And I ponder what it will take to change the attitude that religions aren’t worth studying.
Those of us who grew up Evangelical hold an unusual place among our liberal peers.We’re often able to peer around, over, and under that wall that has been built between those who want a faith-based nation and those who want a free one.Angela Denker is a fellow traveler on this road, and her book Red State Christians: Understanding the Voters Who Elected Donald Trump is a useful roadmap.Some of us fall further from the tree than others, but one of Evangelicalism’s more endearing traits, when taken seriously, is the love of those who are different from you.That love is often forgotten in the political rhetoric daily whipped into a froth by an unstable president being used by his party to install agendas that hardly fit the moniker “Christian.”That’s why books like this are so important.
I confess that reading studies such as this make me uncomfortable.Uncomfortable because my Evangelical past haunts me worse than any ghost, but also because Denker is clearly right that basic humanity is being left in the garbage as battle lines are drawn up in what could be a great, diverse nation if a leader were determined to work for unity.I recently wrote about lunar landings.Kennedy was a Catholic who had to work to bring a nation together around a common goal.Instead of tearing the country apart for his personal aggrandizement, he pointed to the moon.Sure, there was a xenophobia concerning the Soviet Union, but at least in this pocket of the world there was a sense that we should work together.When religion entered politics with Richard Nixon and his followers, a deep rift opened up.The two topics you were never to discuss—religion and politics—were now in the same bed.
Red State Christians is an extended road trip on which Denker interviews people who largely fall under the Evangelical umbrella.Some of them are Catholic.Some of them are Hispanic.Some of them are less concerned with social issues, but are hard-working laborers often overlooked by the Democratic Party.The resulting pastiche is one in which Americans are cast not in sharp relief, but rather with the hazy edges that are a far more accurate way of understanding human beings.Many, it becomes clear, elected Trump out of fear, or out of fear of his opponent.These aren’t bad people, but they are people afraid.This wasn’t an easy book to read, but it is an important one.And those who want to work for a future that might include realms beyond the moon might find this work a small step in the right direction.
It’s perfectly natural.Trying to make sense of things, I mean.It’s been a little difficult in America for the past three years or so, given that nothing seems to add up beyond greed and narcissism supported by a senate majority.Still, as I retreat into my horror films I realize that there’s a logic to it.Over the past several months I’ve been attempting to articulate it.You see, I have a couple of presentations to give on Holy Horror in October and one of the questions likely to arise is why.Why bring together the sacred and the scary?Those who’ve studied religion formally—and many who’ve not—are aware of Rudolf Otto’s classic The Idea of the Holy.It’s outdated and I’ve been waiting for someone to write its replacement, but we’re past the era when one scholar corners the market.Has nothing new emerged this past century?Nevertheless, Otto’s main ideas still make sense, before he lapses into a Christocentric view.
Mysterium tremendum et fascinans isn’t an incantation, but with a little imagination the Latin makes sense.The holy, according to Otto is a mystery that is both terrifying (tremendum) and fascinating.To the laity in the pews this may be strange, but chances are pretty good that your minister has read this book.In the monotheistic west, the divine is terrifying.It’s not splitting hairs to suggest terror and horror differ, nor is it unreasonable to suggest they have much in common.Horror seems more embodied—a working-class variety of terror.Still, both have that element of fascinans.We fear but we can’t look away.I don’t have the time to sit and ponder that a Gilded Age academic had.Otto didn’t have to keep up with Facebook and Twitter.
Although academia required far more than eight hour days, the time during those days wasn’t spent “on the clock.”As one intellectual I admire once quipped, staring out the window is work.Not as far as HR is concerned, however.Productivity in an industry under stress is its own kind of mysterium tremendum, I guess.It doesn’t really allow for unstructured hours to read, take notes, close your eyes, and read some more.Work measures inspiration in terms of currency, which is one of the problems that stretches past beyond these last three years.Struggling hard with an idea is like wrestling an angel until dawn.You can’t win, and you can’t lose.But when the sun clears the horizon it will be time to be at your desk and ideas will have to wait another day.
Sometimes updates don’t help.That’s because evil is so good at masquerading as righteousness that constant vigilance is required.Michelle Goldberg’s Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism was recommended to me by someone at a local church.I’ve been giving educational talks to help people understand what Evangelicalism is, so I figured I’d better read it.The optimistic epilogue to this otherwise excellent book allowed relief after the 2006 midterm elections.Of course, nobody back then could’ve believed an even less intelligent president than W could ever be put forth by the GOP.That doesn’t mean Kingdom Coming shouldn’t be read.It should.And it should be required reading (aw, gee!Homework?).There have been many studies that have demonstrated repeatedly that Christian Nationalism is highly organized and well funded.Meanwhile intellectuals scoff that religion is dead.
I spent most of the last week in a kind of panic.I have another public talk coming up, and I needed to read Goldberg before that.Yes, it is dated.But yes, we have Trump’s bumbling form of “leadership” with a well funded, highly organized Evangelical subculture calling the shots.Forget the politicians—they’re only interested in money—it’s everyone else who suffers from America’s growing fascism.The fact that the GOP won’t stand up to 45 shows that we’ve already turned the corner toward das Vaterland.Anyone the Republican Party elects from now on could be the new dictator.Christian Nationalism stands behind this as journalists scratch their heads.
Goldberg’s book has likely been shelved because eight years of Obama made it seem like the threat was gone.The problem is, silence works to the benefit of Christian Nationalists.Perhaps the most frightening thing about all of this is that many intellectuals simply don’t take the threat seriously.At the same time I was reading this, I was also reading about Nazi Germany (because I’m such a cheerful guy).The parallels are blatant and entirely too obvious to miss.Christian Nationalism has an agenda and it is fascist in nature.Even obeying the words of Jesus takes second place to the political objective of making America in their own image.This may sound alarmist, but it’s based on solid information.The Devil, they say, is most powerful when people don’t believe in him.Those who would make America into a theocracy would claim to follow the other guy, but looking at their tactics, it’s pretty clear who’s really in charge.