SF Gospel

Persecuted Jedi in the news again

A while back I wrote a short piece for Religion Dispatches on an odd news item involving the U.K.-based Church of Jediism, involving a would-be Sith Lord's drunken attack on one of the Church's founders and, more importantly, the powerful impact that media attention can have on new religious movements. The Church of the Jedi is in the news again-- a member is claiming that Jobcentre, a job-training organization, discriminated against him by demanding that he remove his hood indoors. Chris Jarvis argues that going hooded in public is part of his faith. "Muslims can walk around in whatever religious gear they like," he noted, "so why can’t I?" After receiving his official complaint, Jobcentre apologized. The Times' religion blog notes that the Church of the Jedi's founder, Daniel Jones, was involved in a similar dispute with Tesco last year, whose response to his complaint was anything but conciliatory: "Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side  and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood."

As with last year's drunken Vader attack, media coverage of this kind of story only helps small groups like the Church of Jediism, no matter how sneering it may be. For a church that literally started at a backyard barbecue, international press coverage, even as news-of-the-weird items, gives them a farther reach than they could ever have on their own. And given the amount of coverage this group has gotten in the last two years, it seems the Force is strong with this new religious movement.

Original story here; also here.

Bad month for Scientology

It's been a rough month for Scientology-- between unfavorable court decisions, high-profile defections, and the ever-present irritations of Anonymous, October 2009 will certainly not go down in history as their most favorite month. Read more about it in my recent post for Religion Dispatches here.

Awfully quiet around here...

It's been a while since I've posted here, as you may (or may not) have noticed. July was a mixed-up month, between Cornerstone and a week-and-a-half vacation, and now I'm on another week-long trip that's basically a working vacation. I'm in Ithaca, NY, processing (among some other things) a collection of 2,000-odd science fiction magazines for Cornell University's rare book and manuscript library. Which is about the best job ever, yes? But while I'm up here my Internet access is somewhat limited, hence no likelihood of more posts until next week or later.

In the meantime, one neat thing: at a used bookstore in Ithaca today (I don't recall the name offhand), I found an Ace Double that I didn't have (F-215, John Brunner's Listen! The Stars with Jane Roberts' The Rebellers). And on the first page of the latter title, what do I find? An inscription reading "To Rod Serling -- Jane Roberts." Mr. Serling was an Ithacan, so it's very likely this actually came from his collection (though whether or not he ever read it-- who knows. There's some wear, but no actual stress lines on the spine, to which Doubles are particularly prone if they're read). Ace Doubles? Awesome. Ace Doubles inscribed by their authors to SF television's first and greatest master? VERY awesome.

In any event, I never posted links to my second and third video reports from Cornerstone, both of which were posted at Religion Dispatches last week. Video #2, in which I discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of Cornerstone's bands, is here. Video #3 (easily the best of the three) discusses punk monks, the place of spiritual ambiguity in Christian music, and the moral struggle over throwing up the horns to Christian metal; that one is here.

Cornerstone Festival diary, day 1

The first of three installments of my video diary from the Cornerstone Festival is now up at Religion Dispatches. In the first video, I talk about the Festival's many seminars (including those at the Imaginarium, where my seminar was held) and the changing political landscape of the festival. Check it out here.

Some brief thoughts on Cornerstone, evangelical theology, and the "great Western heresy"

So, I'm back from Cornerstone. In short: it was fun; I met some cool people; I even found a band or two that I like (which I hadn't really expected to happen); I discovered punk monks, which is pretty cool (and who'd have expected to find an Eastern Orthodox group at a midwestern evangelical event?); I didn't get run out on a rail for mentioning the gay rights aspect of the X-Men, and in fact found a rather healthy discussion going on about how the conservative church needs to be better about how it treats gay people; I was surprised at the relative non-prevalence of pro-life activism (particularly considering the very definite presence it's had at past Cornerstones), which seems to be getting edged out in favor of issues like poverty, global warming, and child soldiers; and I have found a bit more respect for conservative evangelicals now, though I'm certainly not going to become one anytime soon. More detailed thoughts will be found in a trio of video reports I shot for Religion Dispatches, which I'm told will be posted throughout the coming week.

Having returned from this great gathering of young evangelicals, I was surprised to find that the chief bishop of the Episcopal Church has summed up what I find to be the central error at the heart of evangelical theology. In the keynote address of the Episcopal Church's 2009 convention, The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori states that the central crisis of the church today

has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.  It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus.  That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being.  That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

Ubuntu doesn’t have any “I”s in it.  The I only emerges as we connect – and that is really what the word means:  I am because we are, and I can only become a whole person in relationship with others.  There is no “I” without “you,” and in our context, you and I are known only as we reflect the image of the one who created us.  Some of you will hear a resonance with Martin Buber’s I and Thou and recognize a harmony.  You will not be wrong. [...] If we want to be faithful, we need to be continually rediscovering that my needs are not the only significant ones.  Ubuntu implies that selfishness and self-centeredness cannot long survive.  We are our siblings’ knowers and their keepers, and we cannot be known without them – we have no meaning, no true existence in isolation.  We shall indeed die as we forget or ignore that reality.

To which I can really only say, "that's what I've been saying all along!" I've never been comfortable with the me-centeredness of evangelical theology, which encompasses the problematic idea of "being saved," and the hermeneutic theory that "it's all about you", the prosperity gospel, and, yes, even the idea of "personal relationship" with Jesus. To my mind, the gospel isn't about seeking a relationship between God and oneself; it's about attempting to embody divine love in one's relationships with all people-- and that's a communal goal as much as a personal one. Too much of today's Christianity is about "What can God do for me?," which is, not to mince words, just plain wrong.

Fortunately, I didn't see too much of that self-based theology at Cornerstone. As more and more of the young evangelical community move in the direction of the emerging church, I think (and hope) there will be a shift toward community activism rather than that "great Western heresy" of spiritual prosperity... but Joel Osteen is still pretty popular. Only time will tell.

The full text of Bishop Jefferts Schori's address is available here.

[Hat tip: Religion Dispatches, whose report on the speech is worth reading, as is the pro-gay ordination comic at the bottom.]

Listen Up TV's Science Fiction episode online now!

Well, that was fast. As promised, here is Listen Up TV's episode "Exploring New Frontiers," in four parts.

Part 1, including an interview with Robert J. Sawyer, plus a comment or two from Robert Charles Wilson, among others.


Part 2, featuring yours truly. (They call me a "Harvard-trained expert," which amuses me for some reason. And that is one wacky face I am making in the still frame, huh?)


Part 3, including an interview with author John C. Wright about his (relatively) recent conversion to Christianity, and scientist-turned-writer Peter Kazmaier.

And part 4, the wrap-up.


A nice overview, I thought. You can also watch the episode (and a bunch more) at Listen Up TV's website.

Listen Up TV - "Exploring New Frontiers" of religion and SF

I was recently interviewed for Listen Up, a Canadian religion news show, for a special episode on religion and science fiction. The episode, entitled "Exploring New Frontiers," also includes interviews with Robert J. Sawyer, John C. Wright, and Robert Charles Wilson, among whose company I'm quite thrilled to find myself. It airs Sunday, June 14th on Canada's Global Television Network, but it will also be going up on Youtube in the very near future, so I'll save you the trouble of tracking down a Canadian friend with cable and instead I'll just embed it here as soon as it's available. Sound good? Good.

In the meantime, you can check out the episode summary and a full list of guests at Listen Up's website here.

Religion and SF in... City Journal?

The featured story on the website of city planning magazine City Journal is "How Science Fiction Found Religion" by Benjamin A. Plotinsky. (I'm not sure how it fits into the journal's scope, but nevertheless, there it is.) Plotinsky's thesis is that SF movies and TV, which have historically focused on political allegory, are increasingly rooting themselves in Christian symbolism. The article features a quote from yours truly (a bit from The Gospel According to Science Fiction on the inherent messianism of superheroes), which is flattering, but I can't help but take issue with some of Plotinsky's points. 

I think his division of SF's thematic elements into "political" and "religious" is a bit sloppy, particularly since the article ends by saying that Battlestar Galactica, one of the most religious SF shows pretty much ever, represents the genre moving back into "politics" and away from "religion." If BSG shows us anything, it's that a show can combine complex politics with mythic depth. (Then again, we already knew that from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, a show that Plotinsky quite unfairly dismisses. Indeed, that's where BSG re-imaginer Ronald D. Moore cut his religious-and-political teeth.) Not only that, he undermines his own argument that Christian symbolism is a growing factor by citing examples of SF Christ-figures as far back as The Day the Earth Stood Still. And though I agree about the de-mythologizing of the Force in the Star Wars prequels, I don't see much connection between that retconning and the waning popularity of New Age spirituality (at which Plotinsky takes a couple out-of-place stabs). Nevertheless, it's an interesting read.

What bothered me more is the simple fact that Plotinsky's taste is just... well, idiosyncratic. In his estimation Enterprise was the best Star Trek series since the original; he describes The Next Generation as "phenomenally boring," which I take as an almost-personal insult. Meanwhile Terminator 3 is a "fine film." At times this results in overly simplified or just-plain-wrong readings of important works: the aforementioned Deep Space Nine is dismissed out-of-hand; the epic good-and-evil struggle of The Lord of the Rings is "political, not religious;" The Empire Strikes Back is written off as merely "entertaining" but lacking any religious themes worthy of discussion. (Han Solo frozen in carbonite doesn't at least rate a death-and-resurrection mention?) It's nice to see someone championing Superman Returns, but if that attitude has to come at the expense of The Next Generation, it begins to look like the point has been missed.

Read Benjamin A. Plotinksy's "How Science Fiction Found Religion" here.

A month's worth of links

I seem incapable of reading all my RSS feeds more often than monthly, unfortunately. But hey—that means big linkdumps like this one, and everyone loves those!

• SciFi Scanner interviews Ronald Moore about the conclusion of Battlestar Galactica, and roughly half of the interview is about the role of religion in the show. That's the good news. The bad news is this:

The journey is not over, but certainly both sides are suddenly faced with the prospect, "Maybe it's all been for nothing. Maybe there is no God, and if that's the case where do we go from here? What does it all mean and what are we going to do with ourselves?" which I think is a great place to take the characters.

Sure, Ron, it's a good place to take them. Just don't leave them there, OK? 'Cause if the whole point of this occasionally very upsetting journey has been that there's no point to anything... well, let's just say BSG won't be on the list of 14 awesome things about 2009.

• I knew Richard Dawkins was a humorless bastard, but this takes the cake: he suspects fantasy novels might have an "insidious affect on rationality." The best part? This whole discussion takes place in the context of Mr. "Do-Not-Indoctrinate-Your-Children" announcing that he's going to write "a children's book on how to think about the world, science thinking contrasted with mythical thinking." 
• Also in the Humorless Bastards Department, the Fourth Annual Christian Filmmakers Academy will focus on the theology of SF film—and not in a good way, from the sound of things. Founder Doug Phillips states: "The popular genre has been responsible for persuading American thrill-and-chill- seekers that fictional speculation is reality—especially in regard to the creation of the universe, life on earth, and the 'certainty' of extraterrestrial life." This is pretty much the same anti-SF stance given by James A. Herrick in his polemical book Scientific Mythologies (review coming within a month, really!). One wonders what these anti-SF evangelicals will say when bacteria are (inevitably) found elsewhere... Oh, and to give you a sense of just what kind of Christian filmmakers make up the Christian Filmmakers Academy, they've declared Ben Stein's histrionic and generally dumb Expelled to be one of "the year’s most groundbreaking films." Yeeeeeaaaah.
• In the wish-I'd-thought-of-it category at Holy Heroes, Elliot explores crucifixion imagery in the work of Grant Morrison. Man, I love that Animal Man cover...
• The Crotchety Old Fan reviews... SF Gospel! Well, not just me. He's reviewing every site that was included in that ginormous SF Book Reviewers meme that started a few weeks back (and has been turned into a song—I'm in the last verse.) COF goes into a bit more depth on SF Gospel than on some of the other sites. On his comments I say: 1) Oops, you're right—Klaatu didn't speak to the UN in the original; 2) I'm aware of Wise's opinion, but I stand by my interpretation (particularly since Wise didn't write the screenplay); 3) I hope you won't disagree with everything here, and in fact I can guarantee it right now: The original The Day the Earth Stood Still is a darned good movie. See, we agree on at least one thing.
• Auxiliary Memory takes a look at Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End with an eye to its religious overtones—including a comparison or two to the aforementioned The Day the Earth Stood Still.
• As soon as I have time to play video games again, I'm getting this: "The You Testament," an early church simulator by indie game designer MDickie in which you play one of the first disciples of Jesus. You get to wander around Israel preaching, praying, and possibly getting crucified. 

Why John Scalzi is wrong about SF and religion

Well, that title oughta get me some hits. But it's not really what I'm going to say. Keep reading and you'll understand... 

In a recent post on AMC's SciFi Scanner blog, John Scalzi discusses religion in science fiction film.

...in our common culture, science and religion often take antagonistic roles towards each other -- just pair off a creationist and someone versed in evolutionary biology, let them go five rounds, and you'll get the typical view. But as with everything, the reality is not so clean cut. Polls regularly show that the majority of scientists practice a religion of some sort, while no less than the Roman Catholic Church accepts the idea of biological evolution. Since science and religion co-exist in the real world, how do they exist in the worlds of science fiction movies? The answer (or my answer, anyway) is that it's a mixed bag. Though benevolent spirituality occurs fairly frequently in the future, organized religions are oftentimes used as stock antagonists.

He goes on to list some examples of fluffy spirituality (Star Wars, The Day the Earth Stood Still) and (supposedly*) anti-religious screeds (The Handmaid's Tale, The Chronicles of Riddick) before concluding with some thoughts on the synthesis presented by Contact, which he describes as one of his favorite SF films:

In the movie, Jodie Foster's atheist astronomer and Matthew McConaghey's God-centered maverick preacher trade deep thoughts about the nature of the universe (as well as deep, moony gazes into each others' eyes). Neither converts the other -- I hope that's not a spoiler for you -- but what they do find is that while their views of the universe and God's place in it are not the same, they can still respect each other as seekers of truth.

It's not the deepest discussion, but I think he's more or less on-target: SF has a pretty broad range of attitudes toward religion. He opens with a caricature of conflict, but immediately debunks it. So what's my problem, then? The whole thing appears under a title that's all about conflict: "The Battle Between Science and Religion - And SciFi Is the Battleground." The title takes the idea of a creationist-biologist boxing match literally, and applies it to the genre as a whole—which isn't what Scalzi is saying at all. It's the same problem that the Atlantic Monthly had a few months ago: they ran a few articles that collectively argued that interfaith conflict can't sustain itself under the header "WHICH RELIGION WILL WIN?" (I wrote about it here.) The media, from the Atlantic to AMC, seems to really, really want conflict, so there's a tendency to apply distorting titles that support a narrative of conflict. This means reducing multifaceted situations—like the interaction of science and religion, for instance—into "debates" between the furthest extremes (like the caricature in Scalzi's opening). Here's a tip: if you want to hear something interesting about religion and science, the last thing you should do is book Richard Dawkins and Ray Comfort. The extremes get goofy real fast—and they get boring even faster. The middle ground is where the good stuff is. As Scalzi says regarding his love of Contact, "I can live with being called a squishy centrist on this one."

So, no, I don't think John Scalzi is wrong about religion and SF. However, I do think that his view of what is and is not religious is a bit too narrow. As I've complained elsewhere, far too many SF-and-religion discussions just look at the surface—Star Trek episodes with Greek gods in them, evil churches, and that loudest of clichés, the preacher-villain. They ignore the deeper religious themes that run through so much SF: ideas of good and evil, the core messianism of the epic hero, the concept of creation (both cosmic and local), and above all the providential desire to guide the world toward a better future that I see as SF's ultimate (and ultimately spiritual) aim. Those things are all religious (and each gets a chapter in my book The Gospel According to Science Fiction.**) More importantly, those religious ideas shine through even when the surface message of a book is anti-religious, or the author is an atheist. (Ask me about Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy sometime.) SF doesn't need to have gods or churches in it to be about religion. I mean, dang, Scalzi, the name of your column is "Notes From the Monolith"—don't you know that 2001 is one of the most profoundly spiritual films ever made? Religion can't just coexist with science in SF—it can, and should, thrive there.

Check out John Scalzi's original post, and a lively discussion with many contributions by regular SF Gospel reader-and-commenter D. B. Ellis, here.

*But that's another post entirely.
**This fulfils my self-serving plug quota for this post.