The March: U.S. Rep. John Lewis rewrites history with a comic book

August 19, 2013 by

UPDATE: Since this original 2013 column was published, Lewis released Volume 2 of his graphic novel and then in 2016 he published the third volume. All three volumes now are available in as a set from Amazon.

U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia already is famous as a living hero of the civil rights movement, still crusading in Washington D.C. against new threats to civil rights. He regularly appears in major news reports about the controversy over voting rights in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that erases many long-standing protections. As the August 28th 50-year anniversary of the March on Washington looms, he suddenly is appearing on front pages and in network TV reports as the sole surviving speaker at that historic event in the summer of 1963.

What’s more, he’s suddenly popular with younger Americans as the first U.S. congressman to write a comic book—a graphic novel. He made a personal appearance at Comic-Con San Diego where even celebrities lined up to meet him. However, as the New York Times reports: Lewis was far more interested in this comic book “as a way for him to reach young people and fulfill his duty to ‘bear witness.'”

What the NYTimes did not report was that Lewis was inspired by a comic book he read as an 18-year-old budding activist. The Washington Post did include a mention of that 1958 comic book in its recent coverage of Lewis: “As a young man, Lewis got his hands on the 1958 comic book ‘Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Story,’ which, he said, with its poster-colored lesson of nonviolent protest, inspired many student activists. ‘It was about the way of love,’ Lewis says. ‘We were beaten and arrested . . . and that comic book inspired me to make trouble. But it was the good kind of trouble.’ “

Now out of print, the original comic is available in various archives. It was produced under the auspices of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. You can see the cover of the comic book, at right today. You can read more about the history of the 1958 comic book, thanks to Comic Vine, a website that has emerged in recent years as well-respected haven of information on classic comics as well as reviews of current releases.

Read more about various key figures related to the Fellowship of Reconciliation in Daniel Buttry’s inspiring book, Blessed Are the Peacemakers. Buttry also has published online his entire chapter on the remarkably courageous career of John Lewis.

REVIEW OF ‘MARCH, BOOK ONE’
By David Crumm

As Editor of Read The Spirit online magazine, I am proud to say that we have published many stories about the importance of comics, comic books and graphic novels in sharing stirring stories about faith and cross-cultural issues.

So, I was eager to read John Lewis’s graphic novel and tell readers what you will find in between its brightly colored paperback covers.

The first surprise: While I understand that John Lewis is the first congressman to produce such a book, I still find myself stopping and staring at the book’s first page. Inside the front cover is one of U.S. Rep Lewis’s official Washington D.C. portraits. That juxtaposition alone—the 1960s civil rights movement on the cover and one of our nation’s top elected leaders on the inside cover—tells us a lot about this dramatic half century.

Of course, Lewis understands drama! The new PBS documentary film, The March, includes the story of how a very young John Lewis turned in an advance copy of the speech he intended to deliver at the podium in 1963—and discovering that his planned text was so dramatic that some of the more timid leaders almost bolted from the event.

In his graphic novel, Lewis opens his story on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Five pages of gripping scenes show the police violence unleashed that day on the steadfastly nonviolent protesters. Then—Lewis flashes forward to Washington D.C., as congressmen conduct the nation’s business these days. Visitors arrive at Rep. Lewis’s office and begin asking questions. Clearly, his concern as a storyteller is the important legacy of the civil rights movement. This isn’t a tale told for the sake of nostalgia; this comic book is an educational campaign to capture the imagination of young people today.

In fact, most of “Book One” is about Lewis’s own youthful days in the movement—especially dramatic scenes in the nonviolent protests that opened up integrated seating at lunch counters. Appropriately, readers meet other heroes of the movement, too: Diane Nash and James Lawson make courageous appearances in this first book.

Book One ends with the triumph in Nashville, when segregated lunch counters finally yielded to the moral force and fearless action of the young protesters. An actual section of one such lunch counter now is on display at the Smithsonian Institution—on the very Mall where, in later volumes of Lewis’s graphic novel, the tide of history will carry these heroes.

CARE TO READ MORE? Order a copy of March Book One from Amazon. You also can read much more about John Lewis in this excerpt from Daniel Buttry’s book, Blessed Are the Peacemakers. We also have posted online Buttry’s stories about Nash and Lawson. Enjoy!

Care to See John Lewis?

Below, you can click to watch what we think is one of the best video news reports floating around the Internet about John Lewis’s new comic book project. If you don’t see a video screen in your version of this story, try clicking on the story’s headline to reload the page. (And note: The original poster of this news report on Lewis has included a 15-second commercial message that plays before the report.)

.

.

The Dracula interview with magic expert Jim Steinmeyer

August 18, 2013 by

PITY BRAM STOKER. He was one of the lucky authors who managed to create a character more mysterious and more interesting than he was. …

Late in his career, he wrote a thick novel called Dracula, which garnered surprised reactions from his business acquaintances and mild praise from the critics. Stoker may have suspected that it was his best book. He had no way of calculating that it would become a phenomenon. …

To those who have never read the novel, who feel that they must know Bram Stoker’s remarkable creation because they’ve seen the movie or heard most of the details—the wolves, the bats, the stake through the heart—Dracula is full of surprises. … For over a century since its publication in 1897, Dracula has tempted audiences with the hint of something more, something darker, something concealed. …

A simple explanation is that Stoker’s novel is so interesting because it was compiled at a fascinating time in his life, when he was surrounded by amazing people. It calls for very little speculation to see Stoker’s inspirations, from the people and events that surrounded him in Victorian London, and the colorful characters who befriended him in America. I believe that the most important elements of Dracula were inspired by four people: poet Walt Whitman’s bold carnality; author Oscar Wilde’s corrupting immorality; actor Henry Irving’s haunted characters; and murderer Jack the Ripper’s mysterious horrors.

The real surprise is that Stoker knew these men—maybe even the mysterious Jack! They played important roles in his professional life. They weighed heavily on his personal life. For decades, scholars and critics have speculated whether these personalities had elbowed their way into the world’s greatest vampire novel. It would have been remarkable if they hadn’t.

HOOKED YET? These opening lines come from magic expert and biographer Jim Steinmeyer’s newest book, Who Was Dracula? Bram Stoker’s Trail of Blood in which he invites us on a wild ride through the life of theater manager and writer Abraham “Bram” Stoker. Steinmeyer focuses, in particular, on his acquaintances, including Whitman, Wilde and the actor Henry Irving, who at the time was so famous that we might compare his popularity with that of Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino today. On top of that world-class crew, Steinmeyer argues that Stoker may very well have dined with the real Jack the Ripper.

You may be wondering: Who is Jim Steinmeyer? Where have I heard that name? The answer: Steinmeyer is more famous for magic and his books about magicians. He received a great deal of media attention for his 2011 book, The Last Greatest Magician in the World: Howard Thurston versus Houdini & the Battles of the American Wizards. That’s another fascinating book that Read The Spirit recommended earlier. Why was this magazine so interested in that book? Answer: The life of Erik Weisz—aka Harry Houdini—is deeply entwined with American immigration and diversity, with the Jewish search for freedom and independence and with the birth of American movies and comic books. We also can highly recommend Steinmeyer’s 2004 book, Hiding the Elephant: How Magicians Invented the Impossible and Learned to Disappear.

Doing early holiday shopping? Psst! Here’s a tip. If your shopping list includes a fan of history, magic and the colorful realms of fantasy, that person may love a big, lavish, full-color book by Taschen—which Steinmeyer co-wrote—called simply: Magic. 1400s-1950s. This is truly a coffee table book that you’ll want to leaf through on a table. The book itself weighs in at 12 pounds! Better yet, order your loved one both of Steinmeyer’s recent books: Magic and Dracula. As Editor of ReadTheSpirit, I prepared for my interview with Steinmeyer by reading both books in parallel. The coffee-table book helps to summon the vivid, exotic world in which Stoker lived and worked.

Wondering about the connection between vampires and religious life? Well, check out Jane Wells’ new column, headlined: Invite a Vampire to Church This Weekend.

HIGHLIGHTS OF OUR INTERVIEW
ON BRAM STOKER AND DRACULA
WITH JIM STEINMEYER

DAVID CRUMM: Jim, this exotic world of theatrical production—especially the huge spectaculars that Stoker often produced with Henry Irving—is really your own world, right? In addition to all of your writing and historical research, you’re a designer of magic for famous performers and for Broadway-class shows.

JIM: That’s right. I am a writer and historian. But principally I’ve worked in the world of magic, developing projects for magicians and I’ve done special effects for stage productions, including Disney shows. I worked on Beauty and the Beast and Mary Poppins for the stage. I’ve worked with Doug Henning, including both a television special and a Broadway show with Doug. I’ve worked with David Copperfield and Siegfried & Roy.

I’ve always been interested in the historical aspects of magic and I’ve used that knowledge in developing new projects for the stage. A lot of magicians aren’t interested in the past or think that this history is only an academic exercise. But, I have a much better understanding of what we can do today in magic, because I know what’s been done before and I have so much respect for all the people who have developed these things in the past. So, in addition to working in the field of stage magic, years ago I started writing and giving lectures about the history of magicians.

DAVID: For example, the last time we included your name in Read The Spirit, we were recommending your earlier book, The Last Greatest Magician in the World.

JIM: I’m glad you’re mentioning that book. American magician Howard Thurston is pretty much forgotten, although he was considered Houdini’s rival in his day. Thurston had a truly amazing career.

DAVID: Let’s step back to the era when Bram Stoker was manager of London’s Lyceum Theatre and was the collaborator on productions with the famous actor Henry Irving. We know from your book that Irving loved spectacular, haunting roles and Stoker was responsible for huge casts of extras and special effects. How different was that theatrical world in the late 1800s and the theatrical world in which you work today?

JIM: First, it’s completely different in terms of the technology. The way Stoker had to meet the challenges of creating effects on stage was more of a sledgehammer approach than what we are able to do today. Back then, they would put seemingly endless numbers of people and untold hours of work into creating special effects. One way they impressed crowds was to hire hundreds of extras in full costume to appear on stage with the actors. Of course, that was an era when Stoker could hire whole armies of people to do this work and pay them next to nothing. This was the era before unions. But, in terms of special effects, some of the techniques they developed are still in use today—like trap doors.

THE VAMPIRE TRAP AND THE ORIGINS OF DRACULA

DAVID: Tell us more about that example, which you describe in the book. You explain that vampire productions became so popular that theaters built these mechanical devices known as Vampire Traps.

JIM: These were very fast-operating trap doors in which someone would appear, to the audience, as having been swallowed up in the earth. They would accomplish this either by diving head-first through the Vampire Trap or disappearing down into it. Unlike other trap doors in a stage, these were covered with rubber flaps, or with loops of fabric; sometimes they used whale bone or spring wire. The opening wasn’t visible to the audience, but an actor could pass through it very quickly with the opening barely wide enough for the person’s body to pass through it. And the flaps would close around them, so the hole wasn’t visible.

In the book, I explain that by the time Stoker published his Dracula in 1897 after years of working on it—audiences were familiar with various vampire stories. The idea of a vampire was popularly associated with the theater.

DAVID: They were crowd-pleasers. You say in the book that theater managers knew that a sure-fire way to increase revenue was to toss in a creepy vampire production. So, it’s quite natural that a smart theater manager like Stoker would want to create the ultimate vampire tale. These were money makers.

JIM: That’s right. And the Vampire Trap was originated for the 1851 production of The Vampire by the Irish actor and writer Dion Boucicault.

DAVID: You vividly describe his production with vampires, at one point, surprising the crowd by coming to life from what appear to be paintings, on stage. Boucicault himself played a vampire with a thick Irish brogue. And, as you point out, Stoker knew him.

JIM: Stoker was Irish and grew up in Dublin. He was a man of the theater and, yes, he met Boucicault. By the time he was working on his novel, Stoker would have known that vampire projects were successful moneymakers. He would have known about the other vampire stories and productions. He certainly knew about Carmilla, a tale that featured a female vampire and was published in 1872 by the Irish writer Sheridan Le Fanu. Before that, there was John Polidori’s 1819 The Vampyre, which had been another early sensation using this idea of vampires.

DAVID:  And, here we’re connecting with Frankenstein. Polidori was Shelley’s physician and friend.

JIM: Polidori’s story came out of the same meeting in 1816 at the Villa Diodati near Lake Geneva where there was the famous gathering of Lord Byron, Mary Shelley, Percy Shelley, Polidori and others. Frankenstein also came out of that summer together.

Stoker was such a practical man of the theater that he knew what kind of writing made money. In fact, his other novels were churned out very quickly, designed to sell. When his original notes were found from his work on Dracula, historians realized that he had taken seven years to compose that book. This was not the way he usually worked. He wanted to be sure that every detail in that novel was just right. It’s his best book, of course.

DAVID: So, he certainly didn’t invent the vampire. But a lot of these earlier vampires weren’t much like what we all seem to know about vampires today. Bram Stoker essentially wrote The Book about vampires.

JIM: In Dracula, Stoker standardized the vampire for us. Before Dracula, the rules we all think we know about vampires today, were easily changing in various stories and stage productions. The whole business about killing a vampire with a stake through the heart? And all the details about how you avoid and kill a vampire? All of that comes from Stoker’s book. He gave us the “official rules” for vampires. He tells us that vampires are created from other vampires—that it’s a growing pestilence. A vampire infects others by taking their blood. His expert, in the novel, is this doctor, Van Helsing, who knows all about vampires. It’s Stoker through Van Helsing who tells us things like: You’re under a spell while the vampire is taking blood from you.

DAVID: And these rules changed over time. Stoker labored over this for years! The storyline in your new book, really, looks at all the influences that shaped his thinking and his final novel during those years.

JIM: For example, we know from Stoker’s notes that he originally planned to set part of his novel in Styria, because that’s where Carmilla was set. But, during his research and writing, he picks up Transylvania. We know from Stoker’s extensive notes that he was familiar with Arminius Vámbéry, the Hungarian travel writer. We know that Stoker and Irving had dinner with Vámbéry, while he was was visiting London, then we know Stoker had dinner with Vámbéry again a couple of years later.

DAVID: But this is very important, as you explain in your book: Stoker never went to Transylvania.

JIM: He did read about the region and it became the perfect setting for his novel, but he never visited. In fact, he got some key details about the region—wrong. For example, he describes one area as rocky, craggy peaks, when that area really is rolling mountain meadows and is much more farm like than what he describes. But, then, he’d never visited the place.

DAVID: You also put to rest the popular notion that Stoker borrowed his Dracula from Vlad the Impaler.

JIM: We now know that Stoker was aware of that name, but he only knew the slightest bit about Vlad. He didn’t know what historians know today.

DRACULA AS AN ANCIENT HORROR
CRASHING INTO A MODERN WORLD

DAVID: Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding about Stoker’s novel is its setting. Most of it is not set in Transylvania. In fact, most of the action is in England.

JIM: One of the most important aspects of Stoker’s story is that his vampire comes crashing into the modern age by coming to England. That’s why this is a new kind of horror story, a template by which we can tell these stories in new ways after Stoker. When you read the novel today, this claim may be a little hard to understand, because the whole story seems dated. But this is a modern novel. It’s written in the form of journals and letters. And Stoker intentionally includes the very latest Victorian innovations.

DAVID: I had not remembered until I re-read it recently that, when Dracula is looking for property to purchase in England, he is told that Kodak photos have been taken of some of the prospective locations. I guess, today, that would be like bringing your iPad into one of the world’s remote ancient cultures for the first time.

JIM: Part of the journal in the novel is written on a typewriter—another recent invention. Edison’s phonograph also makes an appearance in another scene—as a way to record notes on a cylinder. This all is part of Stoker’s careful attention to shaping this drama as the figure of Dracula crashing into modern life. Remember that Dracula seems to have been doing just fine in Transylvania. It’s only when he aspires to come to a big city, buy property and set himself up for business in England that we see the horrific reaction and people wind up chasing him back to Transylvania.

DAVID: Other literary scholars have written about this point—the clash with the modern world in Stoker’s novel. But this idea is an important part of your own approach to Stoker and his novel. You set out to find what other “modern” influences shaped the tale. And you argue that Whitman, Wilde, the actor Irving and also the true-crime horrors of Jack the Ripper all played their parts.

JIM: We know that Dracula is not based on Vlad the Impaler, or what we might call the historical Dracula. I am arguing that Stoker’s Dracula is a character he built as an amalgam of people he knew very well and dealt with in his everyday life. I am drawing on the existing literature about Stoker and his novel. I’m also using Stoker’s own extensive notes and other historical sources. I’m saying that there were four important real-life people in the creation of the character we know today as Dracula. Stoker worked for years with Irving. We know that Whitman and Stoker knew each other and corresponded. There are a few speeches in Stoker’s novel in which his Dracula speaks about death much as Whitman did. And, there are other echoes of Whitman in Stoker’s novel.

Another important influence was Wilde, a childhood friend of Stoker’s since their days in Dublin. They didn’t work together in the theater, but they worked in similar circles and, while the novel Dracula was being composed, their mutual friends were reacting to the famous trial of Wilde. One of the points I make about this vampire story is that it’s really about sex, without talking about sex. For people who aren’t supposed to talk about sex, you can read vampire stories. This certainly was true in the 1800s. There are influences of the whole case involving Wilde in the novel. Then, I also look at Jack the Ripper. Stoker himself acknowledged that this horrific case influenced his writing. We also know that Stoker had dinner with one of the leading suspects in the Ripper case.

I am telling readers: I don’t think it’s unreasonable to argue that these people were important influences on the novel and on the figure of Dracula.

DRACULA & VAMPIRES: TODAY & TOMORROW

DAVID: We can’t close this interview without my asking: What movie version do you prefer? There are hundreds of Dracula-and-vampire movies!

JIM: Well, first, it’s amazing how this character keeps getting reinvented over and over. Can you think of another figure who has this much life and potential for reinvention?

DAVID: Perhaps Tarzan or contemporary super heroes: Batman maybe? I guess we might say Santa Claus, who also is an Energizer Bunny for reinvention. But, you’re right. Dracula is an absolutely magnetic force force for creating new books and films—and comic books and TV series as well, we should say. So, what’s on your short list of essential Dracula movies?

JIM: I would suggest that people go back and find a good version of the silent film Nosferatu.

DAVID: I agree. I love that 1922 version and have watched it a number of times throughout my life. Decades ago, only fragmented, scratchy old prints of the film were circulating. Now, Kino has produced a terrific DVD version, sold via Amazon under the name: Nosferatu (The Two-Disc Edition).

JIM: If you’ve never seen Nosferatu, you owe it to yourself to see the 1922 film. It feels very foreign and odd and other worldly. There’s something about the German designs for that silent film that are just so fitting. That movie follows the original novel in some ways, but it also departs from it. Nosferatu is set in Germany; the vampire never makes it to England.

DAVID: How about Francis Ford Coppola’s version that’s pointedly called Bram Stoker’s Dracula?

JIM: Hollywood, for years, chopped out more and more parts of the original novel. Coppola went back and restored elements from the novel. But he also was indulgent and it was a very expensive, over-done film in which everything is dressed up in this very high style. For my taste in Dracula films, I think some of the cheaper productions feel closer to the original intent.

DAVID: And the whole Twilight phenomenon in novels and movies?

JIM: We may think it’s an irony to see Dracula recast as a teenager today, but think about this: Dracula is one of the ultimate disenfranchised characters. He’s a character out of time. Alone. Misunderstood. Then, think about the common ways teenagers view themselves. In that light, Dracula becomes this perfect kind of character for teens. In creating Twilight, Stephenie Meyer extensively used the mythology of the vampire and she went right back to Bram Stoker. Of course, she also added some of her own rules about vampires to enhance her characters.

Overall, Twilight is evidence of Dracula’s staying power. I’m sure we will see this character reinvented again and again.

WANT MORE?

GET THE BOOKS!
We provide links to Steinmeyer’s Amazon book pages, above—but for easy navigation, here they are in one concise list:

  • Who Was Dracula? This is the focus of our interview today; it’s Steinmeyer’s new book on Bram Stoker and the world in which Dracula was born.
  • The Last Greatest Magician in the World You probably haven’t heard of Howard Thurston, but everyone has heard the name of the other major figure in this joint biography: “Houdini.”
  • Hiding the Elephant Explore a fascinating early era in the history of American pop-culture.
  • Magic. 1400s-1950s A big, lavish coffee table book perfect for gift giving.

WANT TO EXPLORE MORE EXOTIC CORNERS OF POP-CULTURE?
Jim Steinmeyer’s publisher, Tarcher/Penguin, specializes in bringing contemporary audiences new editions of classic spiritual books—as well as new books exploring the lesser-known streams of American spirituality. Our last interview with a Tarcher author explored the amazing world of Ray Palmer, a pioneer in science fiction and in bringing American readers stories from Asian religious traditions.

INVITE A VAMPIRE TO CHURCH

Author Jane Wells also is an expert on vampires (and zombies) in pop-culture. You may enjoy Jane’s Glitter in the Sun, a Bible-study book for small groups, drawing on themes from the Twilight saga. Jane also has written a new column, headlined: Invite a Vampire to Church This Weekend

SHARE THIS WITH FRIENDS

Please, share this column with friends by clicking on the blue-”f” Facebook icon or the envelope-shaped email icon. You also can email us at [email protected] with questions.

PBS debuts BBC landmark film on ‘Life of Muhammad’

August 17, 2013 by

Reporting and Review By DAVID CRUMM
Editor of ReadTheSpirit online magazine

When the British television network, BBC Two, unveiled its three-hour series, The Life of Muhammad, in 2011, British journalists and top Muslim leaders were invited to a special preview screening. They were met by network executives crowing about this historic event: They called it the first full history of Muhammad’s life produced for “Western TV.”

However, their claim was debatable. Millions of Americans already were familiar with the PBS network’s 2002 documentary Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. That two-hour PBS documentary has subsequently been shown in countless schools, congregations and small groups nationwide—and around the world. The BBC officials were claiming that their three hours were so exclusively focused on Muhammad’s life that their film was a Western-media “first.” In truth? The BBC was splitting hairs in making its claim.

That’s one reason American media coverage of the August 20 PBS debut of that BBC series is muted, compared with the debut in the UK. Most American viewers assume that public television already has covered the Prophet’s life.

In fact, there are a lot of similarities between the productions. For example, Karen Armstrong appears as one of the main “talking heads” in both productions. Also, both the BBC and PBS networks bowed to Islamic requirements that only Muslims are allowed to visit the sacred cities where most of Muhammad’s life unfolded. In the case of PBS, the American convert to Islam Michael Wolfe was the chief correspondent and, as an observant Muslim, was allowed to film in the sacred cities. In the UK, BBC executives tapped Director Faris Kermani and chief on-screen correspondent Rageh Omaar. Both are Muslim. Curiously, as PBS promotes its debut of the British series, press releases emphasize only that Rageh Omaar has worked as a journalist for the BBC and for ITV News. In fact, in the British press, he was better known in 2011 as a correspondent for Al Jazeera’s English-language network.

On balance? Both documentaries were produced with an obvious awareness that these films could do more harm than good. There is a painstaking balance to both films that occasionally makes them slow going for casual viewers. Contrast these films with the much more provocative documentaries about Jesus and various eras of Christian history—some of which wind up on American cable TV channels each year—and you will feel the weight that PBS and BBC officials clearly feel on their shoulders.

How do these two productions differ? As its title indicates, the PBS series really is about Muhammad’s legacy and focuses quite a bit on the millions of diverse Muslim families in the U.S. The BBC series stays for all three hours with the Prophet’s life, spanning the 6th and 7th centuries. Overall, the BBC series is heavily weighted toward British experts and media personalities.

‘LIFE OF MUHAMMAD’—WHAT WE THINK:

Our Read The Spirit viewpoint: If you care about world religions and the growing religious diversity in the United States, this is “must see” television. You may even want to purchase the entire ‘Life of Muhammad‘ series on DVD, via Amazon. As Editor of Read The Spirit, I watched all three hours and can highly recommend the film. In tackling one potentially controversial issue after another, Omaar carefully presents various points of view and, in the course of the series, paints the kind of balanced portrait of Islam that fans of Karen Armstrong’s books will be comfortable watching on their TV screens.

The BBC deliberately costumed Omaar in this series as a humble journalistic traveler. Wherever he appears around the globe, he always is wearing a simple navy-blue or sometimes charcoal shirt, no tie, comfortable khaki slacks and sturdy hiking boots. Over his shoulder is a simple brown tote bag from which he occasionally pulls a book or some notes. We often see Omaar’s “talking head” popping up in dramatic settings to explain what we are seeing. The other experts he interviews usually are sitting in comfortable scholarly offices or libraries. At one point, Omaar does remove his traveler’s uniform to demonstrate for viewers how Muslim pilgrims to Mecca change into simple white garments. The production design of this series tells us loud and clear: These are all reasonable people talking wisely and compassionately about one of the world’s great faiths.

In other words, it’s a series you’d expect to watch in a class on world religions. Presumably, that’s where most of the DVDs for sale on Amazon are headed.

‘LIFE OF MUHAMMAD’—WHAT OTHER JOURNALISTS SAY:

In the UK, the conservative-leaning newspaper The Telegraph assigned two journalists to cover the BBC Two debut. The newspaper’s TV writer Chris Harvey called The Life of Muhammad “an excellent primer, tracing Muhammad’s journey from orphaned son to prophet of a new religion. … I enjoyed it.”

However, the Telegraph’s religion writer Christopher Howse was less impressed. He criticized the great lengths to which BBC Two went to please Muslims with the series, including bowing to Muslim requirements that only Muslims are allowed inside the sacred cities. The BBC would not have been so deferential in reporting on Judaism or Christianity, Howse argued. And, he has a point. On the other hand, the PBS network made the same choice by tapping Michael Wolfe for its film.

The more liberal-leaning newspaper The Guardian assigned Riazat Butt, a veteran religion writer with long experience in covering Islam, to cover the British roll-out of the series. In general, her columns on the documentary reported positive reactions. Her main criticism was that the filmmakers seemed bent on checking off an inventory of “typical” elements in Muslim culture.

Riazat Butt wrote, in part: “Even though we didn’t see the Prophet, we did see shots of praying (tick!), veiled women (tick!), jihadi references such as the planes flying into the twin towers … and veiled women praying (double tick!). There were also shots of camels. My score card is full. The opening episode deals with the circumstances and society that Muhammad was born into. It charts his childhood and early years—being orphaned, being taken in by his uncle—and the narrative is interspersed, interrupted I’d say, with shots of Rageh praying, Rageh brooding, Rageh climbing over rocks in a manful and foreign correspondent-like way.”

Want to see the series? Be sure to check local TV listings in your region as public television show times vary widely.

AND: Consider ordering the earlier PBS documentary from Amazon: Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet

SHARE THIS WITH FRIENDS

Please, share this column with friends by clicking on the blue-”f” Facebook icon or the envelope-shaped email icon. You also can email us at [email protected] with questions.

A Baker’s Dozen: 13 Best Films on Food and Faith

July 8, 2013 by

By  EDWARD McNULTY

As the Bible says, we do “not live by bread alone”—but food is vital in our lives and in the movies. Without food our bodies wither away and die—a challenge in the 1993 film Alive, a true story about members of a Uruguayan rugby team whose plane crashes high up in the Andes. Food also is a source of great pleasure, as we see in such films as Julie & Julia or Eat, Pray, Love—a film that emphasizes our spiritual relationship with food. As a film critic for many decades, I am confident that you’ll love many of these movies, which you can find on DVD or, in many cases, live streaming.

Best Films on Food and Faith, 1: Babette’s Feast

Directed by Gabriel Axel. 1987. Rated G. 102 min.

Viewers step back into 19th-century Denmark, where we meet two elderly sisters and their fellow ascetic church members—stern and elderly, all of them. Into their lives comes Babette, a once famous female chef who has fled the French civil wars to become a lowly housekeeper and cook in Jutland. To mark this strict little congregation’s centennial, she prepares a meal so elegant and tasty that it overcomes the members’ vow not to enjoy it. Babette’s grand meal even becomes sacramental by reconciling various members who had been harboring grudges against each other. Only one of the guests, the erudite General who once sought to marry one of the sisters, recognizes the truth behind Babette’s main course. In his speech, he recognizes the grace that has enveloped them all. As viewers, we realize what a Christ figure the now humble cook and house servant is. The film won an Oscar for Best Foreign Film. And, more importantly for this list, it won “Best On-Screen Recipe” at the 1997 Cinema and Food Retrospective Festival in Italy.

Best Films on Food and Faith, 2: Places in the Heart

Directed by Robert Benton. 1984. Rated PG. 111 min.

I know, food is not as central in the plot as in the first selection, and yet this film is book-ended by scenes of eating, the opening sequence showing people at breakfast around the village—some alone (one is homeless), others, black and white, gathered as families in homes and the local cafe. During the hard struggle by widow and mother Edna Spalding to harvest the cotton crop early and thus win the purse of money that will save the farm, she, her children, their blind boarder, her sister and husband, and the black itinerant worker Moze become like a family, which the closing sequence affirms. This is set at a Communion celebration in their church. As the trays are passed through the pews, we are surprised to see that even the black man forced by the Klan to leave town and Edna’s husband and a boy, both of whom have died violently, are in the pews partaking, the director/writer surrealistically affirming the reality of the Communion of Saints. The theme of forgiveness/reconciliation is also emphasized when the sister wordlessly forgives her husband as the pastor reads from 1 Corinthians 13.

Best Films on Food and Faith, 3: Fried Green Tomatoes

Director by Jon Avnet. 1991. Rated PG-13. 137 min.

In a small Southern town two women run the Whistle Stop Café where food becomes a symbol of hospitality and counter-cultural racial tolerance. It is during the Depression, and none are turned away, be they hobo or “Negro.” The local sheriff warns the women that the Klan does not appreciate their serving “coloreds” (though the women do bow to custom by serving African Americans outside), but the women refuse to stop. There is a macabre touch later when the sheriff, looking into the disappearance of the abusive husband of one of the women, appreciates the meat sauce. Their story, told by a nursing home resident to a browbeaten wife, empowers her to rise up and assert herself against her domineering husband.

Best Films on Food and Faith, 4: Spitfire Grill

Directed by Lee David Zlotoff. 1994. PG-13. 117 min.

The film’s title comes from the name of the grill in Maine where Percy, a young woman newly released from prison, hires on as a waitress. Of course, she does not immediately reveal her past to this town full of quirky folks. Despite the curiosity that rises around her, Percy manages to bring a large measure of grace to the grill’s elderly owner, to a verbally abused wife, and eventually to the whole town—even though she herself proves to be a terrible cook. There are many subplots in this film, including one about the plight of Vietnam veterans, but Percy clearly is the central character and redemptive force in the story. Although she turns out to be a Christ figure (though very different from Babette), she is, in Henry Nouwen’s phrase, “a wounded healer,” better at helping others than herself.

Best Films on Food and Faith, 5: Antwone Fisher

Directed by Denzel Washington. 2002. PG-13. 120 min.

The movie begins with a dream in which a little boy walks into a barn. A huge table is loaded with sumptuous-looking food, and around it stands a large number of men, women, and children, all smiling their welcome to the boy. The boy dreamer, now a grown US sailor in trouble for his constant fighting, tells his therapist that he was given up by his mother and abused by his foster mother and sister. Advised to return to his hometown so that he can get to the source of his problems, Antwone with the help of his girl friend flies back to his Midwestern hometown and manages to find an aunt and uncle. The film ends after a heart-rending disappointment, the pain of which is swallowed up by the lavish dinner his newly discovered relatives have quickly brought together to welcome him into the family, a beautiful foretaste of a Messianic banquet.

Best Films on Food and Faith, 6: What’s Cooking?

Directed by Gurinder Chadha. 2000. Rated PG-13. 109 min.

The film opens with Norman Rockwell’s iconic Thanksgiving painting—and the rest of the movie shows us how diverse American families have become. It’s Thanksgiving and we meet four American families—African American, Jewish, Hispanic and Vietnamese—all preparing for the holiday. They live in the same Los Angeles neighborhood, but their variations make their dinners a far cry from that Norman Rockwell image. A good deal of the film focuses on the preparations for these meals. What unites these families are all of the surprises and challenges they face as generational expectations collide. While apparently separate through much of the movie, their stories are skillfully brought together at the very end by a surprising event. The great female cast includes Mercedes Ruehl, Alfre Woodard, Joan Chen, Julianna Margulies, and Kyra Sedgewick.

Best Films on Food and Faith, 7: Pieces of April

Directed by Peter Hedges. 2003. Rated PG-13. 81 min.

Pieces of April is one of Katie Holmes’s most memorable performances as April, the Goth-garbed black sheep of an upstate New York family. The rest of her family regards her as an utter failure—and, at first glance, her humble New York apartment suggests that she and her boyfriend are struggling to survive. Nevertheless, she invites her parents and siblings to her flat for a Thanksgiving dinner, partly to mend fences and also to meet her boyfriend. Her family holds such a dim view of April that they almost do not come. Two plots unfold throughout the film: April desperately tries to prepare a proper dinner, even after her oven quits and other disasters befall her; meanwhile, her parents and siblings fight among themselves as they make their way toward her apartment. Soon, most of April’s neighbors are involved in this event. The delightful climax again suggests a Messianic banquet.

Best Films on Food and Faith, 8: Eat, Drink, Man, Woman

Directed by Ang Lee. 1994. Not Rated. 124 min.

Chu, a widower and one of Taipei’s pre-eminent chefs, is the strict father of three unmarried daughters who still live in the large family house, but have distanced themselves from him. He insists that they dine with him every Sunday, but they eat dispiritedly—and one even works at a fast food restaurant. He has lost his sense of taste, a good metaphor for what has happened to them all. Beautiful shots of food preparation and consumption, as well as a new appreciation of each other!

There is an Americanized version of the film entitled Tortilla Soup about a widower Mexican-American chef worrying about the future of his three unmarried daughters. Despite his losing his sense of taste, he continues to cook sumptuous meals once a week for the family.

Best Films on Food and Faith, 9: Alive

Directed by Frank Marshall. Rated R. 120 min.

I will admit that the most bizarre choices for this list is Alive, about Uruguayan rugby players, stranded high in the snowy Andes, who find themselves driven to eat the body of a teammate. The survivors have run out of food and see no prospect of being rescued soon, so the dying player seeks to give the only thing he has to help his teammates survive, his body—and by his encouraging words to remove their sense of guilt. What a take on John 15:13! The film is especially moving, because it is based on British writer Piers Paul Read’s 1974 nonfiction book, Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors. That critically praised book was based on the real-life tragedy of a Uruguayan charter flight that went down in 1972. That factual basis gives the emotionally gripping screenplay a real and haunting power.

Best Films on Food and Faith, 10: Julie and Julia

Directed by Nora Ephron. 2009. Rated. 123 min.

This list would not be complete without including the Queen of the Kitchen and television’s first world-famous celebrity chef: Julia Child. The great Nora Ephron wrote the screenplay, but like the previous film on this list, Ephron’s screenplay is based on historical fact. Blogger Julie Powell, the author of Julie & Julia: 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen, attained celebrity status with her online columns about cooking her way through Child’s famous cookbook. The Ephron movie intertwines the blogger’s life with the life of the famous chef and her devoted husband Paul. Although I enjoyed Julie’s portion of the film, I wanted less of Julie and more of Julia’s and Paul’s largely unknown story. Wow, they both worked for a US spy agency and got caught up in the McCarthy era anti-Communist frenzy! Tell us more! (Wonder about the specific connection between Julia Child and spiritual themes? Consider reading David Crumm’s Our Lent: Things We Carry, which includes a chapter on this connection.)

Best Films on Food and Faith, 11: Big Night

Directed by Stanley Tucci and Campbell Scott. 1978. Rated R. 107 min.

Two brothers have come from Italy to New York to open their dream restaurant, which they call Paradise. Primo (Tony Shalhoub) is the genius in the kitchen and Secundo (Tucci) manages the books and the customers. Primo refuses to cater to his customers’ wishes, and so the restaurant is failing for lack of business, whereas the one across the street serving mediocre food is a big success. That owner offers to ask the famous singer Louis Prima and his band to play at Paradise, which will attract a crowd and also the press. Most of the film is the preparation of the gourmet dishes and then, with a restaurant full of customers, waiting for the singer to show up. Where are the religious themes in this film? In short: Everywhere. To this day, college courses discuss the transcendent symbolism in the film. Or, as Roger Ebert put it more simply: The film “is about food not as a subject but as a language—the language by which one can speak to gods, can create, can seduce, can aspire to perfection.”

Best Films on Food and Faith, 12: Mostly Martha

Directed by Sandra Nettelbeck. 2001. Rated PG. 107 min.

This German film is about the transformation of a domineering chef forced to take custody of her eight year-old suddenly orphaned niece Lina. Chef Martha Klein is as abrasive with her staff and critical customers as is Chef Primo in The Big Night. The romance, and conflict arises when Italian sous-chef Mario arrives, his sunny, playful disposition changing the frigid atmosphere of the kitchen. Whereas the obsessive Martha had failed to bring Lina out of her depression, Mario quickly rekindles the girl’s interest in life—and food. Martha soon sees Mario as a threat, and Lina causes no end of crises for all three of them. As in The Big Night, there are many levels of spiritual reflection in Mostly Martha. At one point, for example, Martha is so exasperated in her attempts to make Lina behave that she tells her: “I wish I had a recipe for you, that I could follow.” The 2007 American remake is worth seeing—after all, it stars Catherine-Zeta Jones—but you should first see the original!

And to make it a Baker’s Dozen: Fordson—Faith, Fasting, Football

Directed by Rashid Ghazi. 2011. 92 min.

Read the Spirit Editor David Crumm (who I mentioned above) recommended that we include this 13th film and I must explain that it is the one feature on this list that I have not seen myself. David recommends this documentary because it is a rare feature-length film exploring the Muslim experience in America with food—and the lack of food—during the annual fasting month of Ramadan, which begins this week as Stephanie Fenton’s story about Ramadan explains. You won’t find this movie on Netflix or on Amazon, at this point, but here is director Rashid Ghazi’s website for the movie. The documentary is remarkably moving as it follows a group of teen-aged football players, trying to observe Ramadan’s strict fast without food or water during daylight hours. This deep commitment to faith and family traditions runs up against equally deep pride in their community, school and football team. How can athletes hope to prepare for the big game when they are denied food and water, day after day? There is a lot to inspire us—and to discuss—in Fordson.

Care to read more about Faith and Food?

Every week, Bobbie Lewis’s Feed the Spirit column tells stories (with delicious recipes!). 

Care to read more from Edward McNulty?

TV: Hallmark Channel debuts Beverly Lewis’ Amish drama

May 2, 2013 by

DALLAS meets the Amish. That’s a four-word summary of the storyline in Beverly Lewis’ trilogy of novels about an idealistic Amish woman trying to find her way in the dangerous realm of the rich and powerful.

There’s no question: “Putting a bonnet on it” is a guaranteed sales strategy for novels and made-for-TV movies these days. Beverly Lewis has been pumping out dozens of Amish-themed, best-selling melodramas for two decades and is widely recognized as a queen in this genre. Lewis is a conservative Christian writer with family links to the Amish, although she is not Amish herself. Her stories always deliver inspirational messages.

KEY TO AMISH POPULARITY: ‘PUT A BONNET ON IT’

Want more stories about the popularity of the Amish?

VANNETTA CHAPMAN INTERVIEW: If Beverly Lewis is a queen of the overall Amish genre, Vanetta Chapman rapidly is becoming a top author of Amish murder mysteries. That’s quite a trick, given that Amish are pacifists. Read our interview with Vanetta Chapman for more.

A “REAL” AMISH AUTHOR: Currently, there are no observant Amish writers producing best sellers. Instead, we get books by friends of the Amish like Lewis and Chapman, authors who do care about the Amish and try to respect their culture. There are a handful of formerly observant “real” Amish authors, however. In our view, the best of those writers is Saloma Furlong, who we also featured in an author interview.

TOP SCHOLARS HELP SORT FACT FROM FICTION: Dr. Donald Kraybill is widely acknowledged as the leading scholar studying Amish life in America. He works with other top scholars in researching and reporting on these communities that decline to speak for themselves through the media. Saloma Furlong is one of the Amish writers who has been associated with Kraybill as a mentor. You’ll enjoy our interview with Dr. Donald Kraybill about his nonfiction book, The Amish Way.

THE NEW AMISH MOVIE: BEVERLY LEWIS’ ‘THE CONFESSION’

THE CONFESSION is the second major Hallmark made-for-TV movie in Beverly Lewis’ trilogy of novels about courageous Katie/Katherine Lapp. This brave young Amish woman leaves her Lancaster County Amish community and eventually unravels a series of mysteries that have twined around her life.

In 2011, Hallmark debuted Beverly Lewis’ The Shunning, Part 1 in the trilogy, which now is on DVD. In that first part, Katie reaches adulthood, hopes to marry a young Amish man she loves—until the young man tragically appears to drown and disappear. Instead, Katie’s family arranges a loveless marriage for her. She rebels, eventually pushing her out of the community. She is shunned.

The new Hallmark film, The Confession, debuts on May 11 and will be repeated at other times. Now, Katie is trying to connect with her biological mother, a very wealthy woman with a terminal illness who wants to bestow her huge estate to her long-lost daughter. If that last sentence sounds wildly unbelievable, just chalk that plot twist up to the Dallas influence in Lewis’ trilogy and simply enjoy the drama as it unfolds.

In the opening scenes, a friend warns Katie that she’d better stop being so “gullible.” Outside the Amish world, the friend tells Katie: People “are liars and thieves and the sooner you accept that, the better off you’ll be.” Cue the greedy schemers. Watch out Katie!

Can you watch The Confession without having read or seen The Shunning? Absolutely. In reviewing the new film, as Editor of ReadTheSpirit, I started with The Confession and, later, went backward to the first part. I enjoyed the new melodrama on its own. Going back to Part 1, however, I discovered that the cast has changed significantly between the first and second films. Katie/Katherine—currently played very effectively by Katie (yes, Katie) Leclerc—actually was portrayed by actress Danielle Panabaker in the first movie. Laura Mayfield-Benett, the wealthy biological mother, continues to be played by Sherry Stringfield in a grand style suited to this Dallas-style plot. However, her scoundrel husband, the evil Dylan Bennett, now is played with gusto by newcomer Adrian Paul. You’ll be hissing at him almost immediately.

For years, Lewis’ formula has been obvious: “Put a bonnet on it—and it’ll sell” is now a well-known marketing mantra. In shorthand, these novels often are called “Bonnet Books.” Nevertheless, romantic melodrama is fun. Dallas’ producers already have announced that a new season is coming in 2014. And, General Hospital just celebrated its 50th anniversary in prime time. This Hallmark drama also is gorgeous to watch and has an supporting cast of characters cut from the Downton Abbey mold

When you get a load of all the scheming among the rich and powerful—you’ll truly appreciate the simple wisdom of the Amish. And, in the end, that’s the real message behind all these bonnet tales.

Reviewed by ReadTheSpirit Editor David Crumm

Originally published at readthespirit.com, an online magazine covering religion, values and cross-cultural diversity.

PBS Independent Lens shows us ‘The House I Live In,’ an indictment of America’s ‘war on drugs’

April 4, 2013 by

REVIEW By ReadTheSpirit Editor David Crumm

How to tune in “The House I Live In”: The national debut of this new documentary by Eugene Jarecki (who earlier gave us the provocative Why We Fight) is Monday April 8, 2013. Dates and times vary on PBS stations. PBS’s Independent Lens website provides film clips and links to search for TV listings in your area.)

Our review …

PBS brings us an eye-popping look at our nation’s disastrous War on Drugs in a nearly two-hour documentary called, The House I Live In. You may ask: Given that drug crimes are everywhere we look in movies and TV series, these days, why watch even more television about the problem? The answer: Because a growing number of religious leaders and human rights activists are questioning the U.S. policy on throwing huge numbers of people into prison for nonviolent drug offenses—especially when a disproportionate number of those people are African-American.

The House I Live In is a superb choice for discussion groups and for anyone concerned about these issues. The documentary is packed with interviews at all levels of American law enforcement: We meet convicted felons; we meet cops and judges who lock them away; we meet officials in Washington D.C; we meet parents and children affected by this system.

Together, these stories underline the startling facts that filmmaker Eugene Jarecki wants to hammer home. We know that these are his core messages because he occasionally pauses the movie to print these findings on the screen, including:

  • Since 1971, the War on Drugs has cost over $1 trillion and resulted in more than 45 million arrests. During that time, illegal drug use has remained unchanged.
  • With only 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States holds 25 percent of its prisoners. Over 500,000 are incarcerated for nonviolent drug crimes.
  • Today, 2.7 million children in America have a parent behind bars. These children are more likely to be incarcerated during their lifetime than other children.

At several points in the documentary, we hear from David Simon, the journalist who now is famous for writing the award-winning TV series about the war on drugs, The Wire. He tells viewers, in part: We are the jailing-est country on the planet! Beyond Saudi Arabia, China and Russia! Nobody jails their population at the rate that we do—and yet drugs are purer than every before, they are more available, there are younger and younger kids who are willing to sell them. It would be one thing if it were draconian and it worked; but it’s draconian and it doesn’t work.

So, contact friends, invite your small group, or simply view this film to open your own thinking on these issues!

Originally posted at readthespirit.com, an online magazine covering religion and cultural diversity.

The Rob Bell Interview: Sorting fact from fiction in the debut of ‘What We Talk About When We Talk About God’

March 24, 2013 by

ON THE DAY ‘TIME’ magazine named Rob Bell one of the 100 most influential people in the world—ranking him with Warren Buffett, President Obama and Duchess Kate Middleton—a big red target splashed across his forehead.

Journalists swarmed, rolling out the C-word (controversial). “Christian” writers had a field day, incensed that he was the only Protestant on the list (New York Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan also made the 100). However, the acid that furious “Christian” commentators tried to throw in Rob’s face never came within 100 miles of his new home. And, here is the first fact today: Rob does, indeed, turn the other cheek. He doesn’t even glance at online commentaries about him.

ReadTheSpirit Editor David Crumm has interviewed Rob many times—dating back to Rob’s first releases in the mega-popular Nooma movie series. Upon the release of Rob’s new book, What We Talk About When We Talk About God, Rob sat down for a lengthy telephone interview sorting fact from fiction.

INTERVIEW WITH ROB BELL

DAVID: People call you lots of things these days! I’m sure you’ve heard names used by fans and foes. Tell us how you describe yourself. A writer? An activist? A preacher? What?

ROB: I will always be writing. I finished this new book and there are three or four other books already in the works. Then, I do a lot of pastoring—specifically with friends and with people I have come to know who are in tight spots and need someone to talk with about things they can’t discuss with other people. So, I am a pastor in that way to a lot of people.

DAVID: OK, when you say pastor, are you on staff at a church now?

ROB: No. I do slip into a few places to hear good preaching. I don’t pastor a church—but we do have an extraordinary circle of friends who live in this area and we do have unique and special gatherings, sometimes over a meal.

DAVID: Let me push you further on this point, because it’s one of the most confusing questions for many journalists—and your critics have a field day with it. Let me cite probably the most prominent critic: the noted historian of American religion Martin Marty. I’ve known Marty professionally for many years and I know that he bats out his columns almost as stream of consciousness. In December, Marty fired off an infamous column, slamming you for going off on your own.

Here are Marty’s final lines, warning you about straying too far from the institutional church: “The inherited forms, though in need of revision, in any case often speak with an authenticity that demands some patience, while the quickly formulated and celebrity-endorsed versions may go as they came. One hopes Rob Bell sticks with some promising inventions long enough for him and us to see that while ‘Love wins’—‘new’ is less likely to.”

ROB: First, I don’t know Martin Marty. I haven’t read him. I’ve never met him. And, I doubt that he knows much about me. We each have our path and our calling. I certainly try to keep wise people around me—and to walk with them through what we’re sensing and feeling as we make decisions. Every day, I do my best to give my best to the world. So, for Martin Marty to make some random judgments about me and send them out into the world in a column like that—well, the main thing I need to explain is: It’s 100 percent irrelevant to me.

DAVID: I’ve known you and your family for years, Rob, and I know that’s not a pose. It’s a fact: You read widely in books by scholars and literary lights of your choosing—but you don’t read 99 percent of the stuff written about you online. Still, let me press you on this because what Marty is asking is a legitimate question. Are you a pastor? For a lot of Americans, a “pastor” looks like a man or woman heading a church.

ROB: OK, you are raising a great point. But why not ask that question of Billy Graham? We think of him as a pastor, don’t we?

DAVID: Sure, that’s a good model to raise. Plus, in his heyday Billy Graham, like you, was a very popular moviemaker. Now, people think of Graham as a friend to presidents and an evangelist in huge arenas. But, in his prime, Graham used every form of media available to him—including making lots of movies. I know, from past interviews, that you aren’t claiming to be the next Billy Graham, though. So, again, the question: Give us a title for your work now?

ROB: I’m a pastor. I describe myself as a pastor who makes things—whether it’s creating experiences or books or new things that will be available to people in the future. I’m a pastor and I create things and I will keep creating new things: the next thing and the next thing after that. If I am able to complete some of the things I’m working on now, these will be beautiful things that will help people.

I have learned the hard way that I simply cannot pay attention to people like Martin Marty writing some random column about me without knowing anything about my work or me. I can say this: I don’t know him; he doesn’t know me. I’m just a pastor who goes about my work creating things to help people.

ROB BELL FACT or FICTION:
KICKED OUT OF MARS HILL FOR DENYING HELL?

DAVID: This line of questioning is relevant to your new book, What We Talk About When We Talk About God, because the central message of the book is: “We’re in the midst of a massive rethink, a movement is gaining momentum, a moment in history is in the making: there is a growing sense among a growing number of people that when it comes to God, we’re at the end of one era and the start of another, an entire mode of understanding and talking about God dying as something new is being birthed.”

Sorting fact from fiction in the popular conception of your work—that’s really a part of what this new book is all about. Shedding the old, confusing, unhelpful myths. This new book isn’t autobiographical about your journey to the West Coast, but it certainly is about how confusing the old language is in describing your new work.

This leads me to ask about the troubling legacy of that big New Yorker magazine profile by Kalefa Sanneh. If readers look for the profile online, they won’t find it—it’s only available to New Yorker subscribers—but the summary the New Yorker has posted says: “Bell’s life can look like a cautionary tale: his desire to question the doctrine of Hell led to his departure from the church he built.”

Fact or fiction?

ROB: First, I want to say that Kalefa is an amazing writer and I thoroughly enjoyed the time I got to spend with him. I’m a fan of his work. I think he wrote a great piece. But, there was a misquote of Kristen that caused distress.

DAVID: Right. And this actually took a lot of us who’ve known your work for years by surprise. Frankly, I would have guessed you’d have touched off the biggest firestorm by becoming inclusive of gay Christians, but the biggest controversy actually erupted over a different issue. It was touched off by a claim you made in your 2012 book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. You dared to write that non-Christians won’t burn in the fires of Hell. A lot of things hit all at once: TIME magazine appeared in April 2012 with the 100 list, seeming to snub all other Protestant leaders; Love Wins debuted a couple of months later. Your critics were out for blood.

You already had planned to move West. Then, in November, the New Yorker profile appeared with the quote that you say Kalefa presented in the wrong way to readers. In that quote, your wife Kristen said that after Love Wins debuted: “There was a cost. And part of the cost was, we couldn’t keep doing what we were doing at Mars Hill.” I’ve researched the flow of news stories after that and this got boiled down to: Rob Bell was kicked out of Mars Hill for denying Hell. That version now shows up a lot of places online. Martin Marty furthered that myth in his December column.

ROB: If people think that I had to leave Mars Hill because of the response to Love Wins—that is just categorically not true. I left Mars Hill because of a sense of calling to come to California to work on these new projects here.

In fact, Mars Hill could not have been more supportive! Mars Hill was amazing! They had multiple book-launch parties for that book. They were incredible. I assume that there were some people at Mars Hill who weren’t happy about that book, but there were always people leaving and coming—that’s what Mars Hill always has been. People come and people go. It’s that kind of ministry.

DAVID: Well, I checked further and I think the best evidence is that Mars Hill still credits as the “Founding Pastor and Pastor Emeritus.” They’re still proud of you. So, the story of you being forced out—which is the way the story is told in a lot of places online—is fiction.

ROB: Mars Hill was great. Mars Hill’s leadership was great. They couldn’t have been better. Why did I move to California? Because I had a chance to produce a new kind of television show that still is progressing along fabulously.

ROB BELL: WAS HIS TV SHOW CANCELLED?

DAVID: Some online stories correctly explain your TV productions—and some have mixed up the details. It’s easy to get this incorrect version: Rob Bell moved to Hollywood to produce a TV show that flopped. So, let’s sort it out for readers?

ROB: I have been involved in two television projects. The first one is still progressing, as I said. But, since I was coming out here to work with Carlton Cuse from the TV series LOST on one production—we also produced scripts for a series based on a novel that I wrote but never published. The novel and the TV series have the title Stronger. It would be a dramatic series about a main character named Tom Stronger with some spiritual themes in it—but we wrote it as a regular TV series with plots and actors and so on. The ABC network bought it, like they buy all sorts of things, and we did some work on it last year—then it was not green lighted to air as a network pilot. Like all sorts of TV projects out here, it’s floating along over there on hold.

But I didn’t move to California to write and produce Stronger. I moved out here to work with Carlton on a different TV show—one we’re still working on.

DAVID: Lots of writers have tried to describe this main TV project as a kind of TV talk show about religion, spirituality and values. From what you’ve told me, I’m envisioning a next-generation Bill Moyers—like the landmark series he did with Joseph Campbell or that superb series Bill did on Genesis.

ROB: Well, I do see this project as winding up something like Bill Moyers. But, if we succeed, it will be a new kind of TV: Think of it as Bill Moyers meets Ellen meets Colbert meets a TED conference meets an AA meeting. Throw all those into a blender and push the button! (laughs) You’ve got to admit: That would be new—right?

DAVID: Yes. If you can pull it off.

ROB: That’s the point. It’s hard work. It would be a real game changer. That was worth the chance we took in moving to California. Think about this: In our culture right now, when people gather for Thanksgiving dinner two topics will get everybody talking: politics and religion. But, on television right now, you can only find one of those topics discussed all the time—politics. Religion is different. Sure, there’s a lot of religion on television, but there is virtually no intelligent discussion of religion on the major networks. Carlton and I still are working on that idea. That’s the idea—the real vision—that led me from Mars Hill to California.

We need television that explores questions about what really motivates people in our world today: Why do we get out of bed every day? What gives us hope? What motivates us? Where do we find our hopes? These are religious and spiritual questions. This is well worth the move West.

ROB BELL: HOW SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT GOD?

DAVID: OK, now we’ve come full circle and it’s clear where your new book falls in the overall arc of your work. Those questions you just listed? Those are the questions that, as a journalist covering religion, I’ve always told readers are the really essential spiritual questions of our era. You can debate the fine points of theology all you want, but what truly matters? You just listed the questions.

ROB: When I think of people reading this kind of book—or looking for the kind of television I’m trying to produce—I see a huge variety of faces. So many snapshots flash through my brain of people I’ve met everywhere I’ve traveled. What they understand—and what we too easily can forget in churches—is that people are interested in spirituality and religion because they already have sensed the sacred around them. They feel something when a child is born, or they hear an amazing piece of music, or they volunteer to help others and experience a common source of love and community. They experience these things, then they go seeking more of it—and they may walk in the door of a church—but in too many cases, they don’t find what they already know is the sacred part of life within the church. So, they walk back out the door.

DAVID: I know from many years of religion reporting that rabbis often make this point. I’ve talked with a number of Jewish leaders about prayer and personal signs that God is with us—and they will talk about feeling God. Often, they will list the same kinds of examples you’ve just listed. Evangelical preachers tend to give the impression that God is much more tangible in a “close personal relationship.” Your book actually begins with Jacob thousands of years ago in the Bible waking up in the wilderness and reporting: “Surely God was in this place, and I—I wasn’t aware of it.”

ROB: That’s why I don’t start this new book with dogma and doctrine. I start with the experiences of real people. I’ve learned a lot from Richard Rohr. The great power I find in his writing is that he often puts into words things that I’ve already experienced but haven’t been able to describe. In this new book, like Rohr, I start with experiences. Have you ever had this feeling? This new book really is about the fragility of the human experience. We are soul and bone. We are capable of greatness and we have the capacity to be prophetic. We may have experiences in life that open our hearts as wide as the ocean. But—we also have the capacity to be very small, petty and negative.

DAVID: In a way, you’re trying to restart people’s hearts in this new book. You’re trying to expand our religious imagination. That’s why the whole first section of your book is about the head-scratching, eye-popping, gee-whiz wonders that science is revealing about God’s creation, the universe. Here’s a passage: “It’s all—let’s use a very specific word here—miraculous. You, me, love, quarks, sex, chocolate, the speed of light—it’s all miraculous, and it always has been. When people argue for the existence of a supernatural God who is somewhere else and reaches in on occasion to do a miracle or two, they’re skipping over the very world that surrounds us and courses through our veins and lights up the sky right here, right now. We live in a very, very weird universe.”

One could describe this book as: A Psalmist meets Douglas Adams.

ROB: I’m trying to alert people to the full range of human experiences in which we find God. We find God in the full spectrum of human emotion from joy to tragedy from triumph to heartache. God is found in all of this. As a pastor, I’ve found that many people have been taught to believe that God is only in good things. Then, this leaves people with lots of questions when bad things happen. But across the fullness of Jewish and Christian traditions, we learn that God is in both the valleys and the mountaintops. For a lot of folks, organized religion becomes this system that provides a weekly God hit. Like my friend Peter Rollins, I believe that God is much bigger than the weekly God hit most churches give people.

ROB BELL: ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?

DAVID: We just featured an interview with Peter Rollins. And I know that he describes himself as a Christian, but not like a lot of other people use the word “Christian.” So, let me ask that question of you. It’s obvious in reading your new book that you write as a Christian, but some of your evangelical foes want to question this point. Are you a Christian?

ROB: Yes. As a Christian I am part of an ancient tradition that overflows with wisdom and insight about what it means to be human—and to experience, to know and to live with God and each other. I’m trying to introduce people to this tradition because it’s beautiful and it brings all sorts of life to people who really need it. I’ve always believed that what I am doing is helping people today to tap into this ancient tradition.

DAVID: A lot of your critics get hung up on points that you’re now taking in stride in your writing and other forms of teaching. Your foes don’t like it that you welcome gay Christians. Popular culture seems to be swinging your way this year. I’ve lost track of how many executives in top American companies and how many Republicans have now gone on record as supporting civil rights for gay Americans. But your critics seem to be stuck on other points as well. We should point out that this new book is fully supportive of women’s leadership in the church, right?

ROB: The world is better when people are treated equally. A lot of women remain in religious traditions that won’t free them to serve in leadership. I say: We are standing in their way and we shouldn’t be. Women can lead us. They have led us. This has always been obvious to me. In the book, I tell the story of a woman with two master’s degrees who is sitting in her church when she hears the preacher tell the congregation that God doesn’t want women in leadership. Think about that! And it happens all the time. It’s so obvious to me that women should equally share in leadership.

DAVID: Same question on religion and science. You write that the two should go together hand in hand on our spiritual journey. A lot of your critics are still hung up on thinking that it’s got to be: Science vs. Religion.

ROB: Science can give us back our sense of wonder and awe. It was Annie Dillard who told us that a cathedral and a physics lab are both places where we hear God saying: Hello! When I hear scientists talk about their research today, I can’t help but feel awe. If we are people of faith who really believe in God as Creator, then this world ought to be a primary place of wonder.

DAVID: Well, last question: I didn’t forget your initial comment about other books in the works. Can you give us a preview?

ROB: My wife and I are writing a book about marriage and that’s been an incredible experience. I will say this: She has lots of wisdom! We’re both thrilled with the content we’re putting together for that book. So, you will see a book from us on marriage.

And, as you just pointed out, I’m fascinated with science and physical space. I’ve read a lot about architecture and the ways physical space affects our spirits. This is a discipline that’s been undervalued for far too long in the West. I want to help people keep finding new ways that our world can be a more life-giving place.

Originally published at readthespirit.com, an online magazine covering religion and cultural diversity.