Birthday of a Preacher Man: Elmer Gantry Turns 80

From an article in the Wall Street Journal. I think this essay is so good, I'm lifting it in its entirety.

By WILFRED M. MCCLAY
December 28, 2007; Page W13

You probably didn't notice it, but that old rogue Elmer Gantry turned 80 this year. A surprising thought, perhaps, given what a fixture Sinclair Lewis's 1927 fictional portrait of a bogus and amoral itinerant Midwestern preacher has become in both our speech and our imaginations. Was there really a time when we didn't have Elmer to kick around -- or to kick others with? It is hard to imagine. No less than the camp meetings on the frontier or the Scopes Trial or the stadium revivals of Billy Graham, the character Elmer Gantry has shaped the world's impressions of American religion.

Burt Lancaster as Elmer Gantry in the 1960 movie.

A crude, profane, hard-drinking and oversexed football player from Paris, Kan., Gantry, using his histrionic gifts and his "arousing barytone," latched onto the ministry because of the power it gave him over others. The book related Gantry's picaresque wanderings from one ministry to another, always looking out for the main chance, always complicating his life with amorous dalliances, always ready to beat a hasty retreat, always emerging from his scrapes with ambitions undimmed.

His creator was a gloomy alcoholic Midwesterner with a personal life just as rootless and messy as Gantry's. But Lewis (1885-1951) gave us a cultural icon whose name is invoked every time there is a scandal involving sex, money and a preacher.

Not many writers can claim similar success in adding to our storehouse of powerful archetypes -- or our cupboard of easy clichés. But this is the chief consolation for a literary career that has otherwise faded into obscurity. Lewis's reputation peaked in 1930, when he became the first American to win the Nobel Prize in literature. With this award and the invention of two cultural icons -- Gantry and the crass businessman George F. Babbitt -- Lewis has a secure place in the history books. But that does not mean that, except as cultural artifacts, his books are much worth reading today.

The textbooks assure us that Lewis is one of the great satirists of modern American life, telling hard truths about the shallowness and hypocrisy of Middle America through a series of important novels -- from "Main Street" (1920) to "Babbitt" (1922), "Arrowsmith" (1925), "Elmer Gantry" and "Dodsworth" (1929). There is some truth to this. But the adult reader is likely to tire quickly of Lewis. His descriptions of even the simplest scenes are permeated with snobbishness and juvenile editorializing; his plots are studded with absurd and implausible twists. And his characters are as simplistic as those in comic books. They sometimes change, but they do not grow or develop. And there is no larger view behind his criticism, no sense of what kind of world Lewis would favor over the gimcrack one that he loathed so much but could not stop writing about.

In short, there is plenty of obsession but almost none of the marks of high novelistic craftsmanship in Lewis's books, particularly "Elmer Gantry." As Rebecca West wrote in a scathing contemporary review of the novel, Lewis's satire fell short because he did not "possess, at least in the world of the imagination, the quality the lack of which he is deriding in others." In other words, the narrowness he described was as much his own as that of the people he depicted. He lacked vision and generosity of spirit precisely because he was still fighting the intramural battles of his native world.

That is not to say that he could not write vividly. "Elmer Gantry," observed sociologists Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shupe, "was as loathsome a character as has ever been born in the mind of an American writer." Completely cynical, without a shred of genuine religious faith or natural piety, Lewis's Gantry is an engine of social-climbing ambition. By the book's conclusion he has made himself into "Dr. Gantry," a major national religious leader whose sermons are broadcast on the radio and who holds an influential pastorate in New York. Even at the end, he barely escapes blackmail by a secretary with whom he has had an affair. But the book closes with Gantry's congregation loudly affirming his innocence and his promise that "We shall yet make these United States a moral nation!" -- even as he is taking note of a new singer in the choir, "a girl with charming ankles and lively eyes, with whom he would certainly have to become well acquainted."

With such gibes directed against not only the sawdust trail but the clergy in general, small wonder that "Elmer Gantry" was so controversial (literally banned in Boston) and such a strong seller (175,000 copies in the first six weeks). It was a deliberate affront to the pious. Lewis had, after all, dedicated the book to the acidulous skeptic H.L. Mencken, "with profound admiration," a clear indication that the book was an intervention in the culture wars of its day. But even its most admiring readers found little to praise in it as a work of literature.

For that reason, the movie version of "Elmer Gantry," made in 1960 and starring Burt Lancaster, was forced to take radical liberties. Director Richard Brooks's screenplay extracted a coherent story from Lewis's sprawling mess, shifting around countless details and slashing away about two-thirds of the text. It invented a significant role for George F. Babbitt himself, transformed another character into a complex agnostic newspaper editor who is both friend and foil to Gantry, and presented established clergymen as men of decency and principle, something that Lewis was loath to do.

It also complicated the character of Gantry, making him a more intriguing human being, a mixture of charlatanism and generosity, of hypocrisy and genuine faith, of self-centeredness and loyalty, of lust and love. The movie also provides development of his character -- all the way up to the conclusion, when a fire engulfs the revival hall, killing scores of the faithful, including Gantry's preaching partner (and inamorata) Sharon Falconer. In the end we see him, seemingly a changed man, walking away from the ruins and quoting Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

We cannot tell what he was walking away from, or putting away. Was it revivalistic showmanship? Or religion in general? Or merely that phase of his life? The ambiguity reflects the moral seriousness with which the movie ends -- a notable contrast to the book's flippant and cynical conclusion and a more fitting basis for us to reflect on the meaning of Elmer's 80th year. Sinclair Lewis created a character larger and more interesting than he knew. You will have to look beyond his book to see it.

Mr. McClay is a humanities professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

Tough calls in transplant case - Los Angeles Times

Tough calls in transplant case - Los Angeles Times

Some interesting quotes in here.

ABC News: Tragedy for Teen After Surgery Denied

ABC News: Tragedy for Teen After Surgery Denied

I wonder, if in future cases that are really tough to decide, insurance co.'s will have a doc on the team whose job it is to make the best-informed possible decision about whether the insurance co. will pay for the treatment or not.

I also wonder what the rate of alcoholism among such docs will be.

How to Really Love a Child

(Found in a child psychologist's office.)

You will always have the poor

So, everybody knows that part where Jesus says "You will always have the poor." But, did you know it's also present in the Old Testament? Deut. 15:11:

Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbour in your land.’

Good Psalms

So, I've run across some good psalms in my Bible study, and I should capture 'em here for future reference (and for any other lost (or otherwise temporarily bewildered and/or detouring) souls out there who might benefit) .

• Psalm 51, for when you've done something bad and you feel bad about it.
• Psalm 55, for when you've been betrayed by somebody you trusted.
• Psalm 107, for several categories of being lost.
• Psalm 22 is pretty good, too.
  

And finally, the best one I know, reserved for the end, break glass in case of emergency, use judiciously:

• Psalm 77, for those long, dark, sleepless nights.
  

AP Wire | 12/26/2006 | Military deaths in Iraq exceed 9/11 toll

AP Wire | 12/26/2006 | Military deaths in Iraq exceed 9/11 toll

Quote from the story:

"The president believes that every life is precious and he grieves for each one that is lost," deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said Tuesday.

So, I'm thinking... western military deaths are probably the smallest fraction of deaths in this situation, compared to enemy combatant deaths and civilian deaths. I don't care so much about enemy combatant deaths, but civilian deaths is a little bit different.

It's hard to get an accurate count of Iraqi civilian deaths, but I bet it's pretty darn high. If we subtract out the number of Iraqis that would have died under the old regime, I bet it still far exceeds the number of people killed on 9/11.

So, we, as a nation, have answered violence with overwhelming violence. We responded in anger to an attack, and look where it's gotten us.

Lesson: next time, take a deep breath and get the facts right. And, if you do go in, plan for an after-victory program. We are the world's policemen. Like any New York City cop, we have to treat everybody with a certain minimal amount of civility.

Filioque Controversy

Filioque Controversy

Looks interesting. Part of the split between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Neo Culpa 2

btw, I heard on NPR that the Iraq Study Group may recommend more troops be sent to Iraq (along w/engaging in dialog w/Iran and Syria).

And I also heard recently that some general (current or recently retired) felt that we needed twice as many troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. I understand we currently have upwards of 120,000 troops there now.

Anybody remember Eric Shinseki getting fired for telling Rumsfeld we'd need 300,000 troops to go to Iraq?

(I should find some links for all this, I suppose.)

Ok, here's one: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/abizaid_dont_im.html

Neo Culpa

Hmm. Where's Wolfowitz in all this? I sorta thought this whole thing was his baby. The author of this article doesn't mention him. The other neo-cons don't mention him.

Is the author asleep? What kind of magazine is Vanity Fair?

Are the neo-cons purposely neglecting to mention him?

Will the full article in January explain all this?

What Would Jesus Do?

[Nothing new under the sun here.]

Heard in church today: What would Jesus do? Apparently, this concept is at pretty old, not just cooked up in the 1990s by the neo-religious-right.

The idea is: promise that, for a year, you won't do anything at all without asking yourself: What would Jesus do?

Now, I wonder....

Jesus would give his all. His earthly possessions, his blood, his life. Every bit of it.

"Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor."

So, what's the point of asking ourselves what Jesus would do? We should sell our possessions and give the money to the poor? Move into the smallest, cheapest house and car, buy clothes at the PTA thrift shop, never take vacations (except for mission work), not spend money on unnecessary luxuries like digital cameras or cable TV or NetFlix? Stop smoking and drinking two beers a day?

Or... are we simply expected to writhe in guilt every minute of every day at our failure to have the courage and faith to take that road of poverty?

God wants the best for us. He doesn't want us sad and miserable every day. Of course, we should be aware of our sins (and that includes our lack of total commitment), but we should also be aware of his love for us in spite of our imperfections.

Man, what a tough question. I get a little pissed off at people that cast these sorts of judgemental aphorisms around. "What would Jesus do?" Implying a (yet another) holier-than-thou attitude. Leave me alone!

And, of course, there I am, sitting in church, being judgemental myself, because everybody is giving these self-centered reasons for giving money to the church (e.g., "because it makes me feel so good!" It's not about you, it's about God. You missed the point. Grump, grump, grump).

And... he does expect us to live the life of total charity. If every person on the planet were to do so, that would be... the kingdom of God.

Sigh.

So. A nothing blog entry. We should act. We should feel guilty. But not too guilty, because we are still loved. But we should still act.

And, by the way, blogging is not acting. Unfortunately.

Did God Divorce His Wife?

A dramatic headline, I know.

God = Elohim.

God is El, I think. Bethel, house of God. Israel, God strives. Daniel, God is my judge.

El was the supreme god in the land that became Israel, the father of Baal and the husband of Ashera, against whom the Old Testament prophets constantly railed. Why such strong reactions against both Ashera and Baal? We hate the ones closest to us. Case in point: the ones the New Testament Jews despised the most were the Samaritans, I believe. (Samaritans [and there are still some today] believe the only scripture is the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, so they're like "almost-Jews".)

If we take the "parental figure" view of God, Israel (and us, as spiritual/figurative descendants of Israel) was God's children.

My 8-yr-old son was lolling around on the carpet at home a few days ago. I asked him to pack his knapsack for school the next day. He did, reluctantly. Then I asked him to zip his knapsack up, so the stuff wouldn't fall out. He looked directly at me, said "No." and then looked over at his mom. She is encouraging this sort of behavior on his part. She gives him emotional support at moments like this, or at least, doesn't discourage him. (It's complicated, but she's conveyed to him that she likes it when he shows her favor over me, and shows evidence of alienation from me. She actively worked to punish him in the past for showing me favor, now she doesn't have to; all she has to do is not discourage it, so it's essentially passive encouragement.)

The emotional pain I felt was piercing.

My young son, the innocent child, is showing me he doesn't respect me. I see him growing away from me, day by day, under the subtle encouragement of his mom. (I couldn't discipline him because then she would have "rescued" him from me, or she and I would have had a big fight and Conrad would later feel it was his fault, and I am absolutely not going to do anything to make him think our divorce is his fault in any way.)

And it occurred to me: this must be how God felt when Israel (his children) displayed (display) a preference for Ashera (i.e., Astartes) and Baal (or other modern-day distractions, like possessions and status).

Ouch. I can definitely feel his pain.

Does God Always Answer Prayers?

So, this question came up in Alpha: Does God always answer prayers?

It was posed as a true/false statement during a talk, and we were invited to discuss it in our small groups for a couple of minutes before continuing.

My answer was "No", and the reason I gave that answer was because sometimes I pray and get absolutely no response, no feedback whatsoever. And I believe the answer to the question is "No".

But... a lot of other people said the answer is, essentially, "Yes, of course he does!". Which I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised at.

However, to say that "lack of response" is "response" (or "lack of answer" is "answer") is stretching the meaning of the word "answer" w-a-a-y-y too thin, and it's another example of the kind of non-thinking I feel sometimes happens among people calling themselves Christians.

Ok, now, don't get me wrong. These folks I was with last night are all good people, every one of them. I got genuine solace from them last night, when I needed it, and I do feel that God was working for me through them.

But, I just wish I could find a bunch who would be willing to consider the non-platitude, non-pat answer, because I think such a greater appreciation of God and his workings could be gained from that consideration.

God doesn't respond to every prayer. He hears every prayer, and he considers every prayer, but sometimes he makes the situation neither better nor worse. Sometimes, God's response (I should put that in quotes: "response") to a prayer is a deafening silence.

Maybe the thing that frustrated me the most, and maybe it shouldn't frustrate me so, was the sense that I'd been ambushed after I gave my answer. "Gotcha!" No, you didn't get me.

* * * * *

Ok, that's enough whining for tonight.

Vanity Plate Bible Citations

So, one occasionally sees vanity plates with Bible verses on 'em.

If I had such plates, I might put one of the following on 'em:

MICAH 6:8

1 COR 10:23

So there.

Psalm 19:14 / links on false prophecy

Here, let me pray into my blog (I'm pretty sure God's reading it):

May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer.

- - - - - - -

So, the question came up in Alpha: how can we detect false prophets? I had this big, long answer, but it's essentially just quoting from the Bible, so let me just put the links out for future reference:

• Deuteronomy 13:1--3, 18:21--22
• Jeremiah 23:13--32
• 2 Peter 2

I would have loved for the answer to be "if they tell you to hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers, they're false prophets," but it ain't quite that simple. Those passages essentially say: if the prophet's predictions don't come true, or if the prophet's lifestyle isn't consistent with the lifestyle God calls for, then you know it's a false prophet. Another thing that's said is that if the prophet encourages us to worship "another god", we know it's a false prophet.

However... what is "another god"? Baal? Molech? Sure, that's clear enough. But, what about an angry "God" that tells us to kill immoral people who are functioning in support of a capitalistic society? Is that truly a message from God, or is the false god of anger and hatred what's really being worshipped here? (Or is this a case of the prophet telling his own dreams instead of God's message?) At what point does righteous anger become unrighteous anger?

Alpha

So, I've been taking this class at OUMC. I've been wearing two hats: one, as a student in three Disciple classes and currently starting my fourth; the other as a Christian who considers some aspects of his faith new. I have this sort of secret plan (that I tell everybody I meet about; maybe I should be a little quieter about it) to find out what it's like and maybe introduce it at my church someday (UUMC), so I want to see what it's like. And also, at the same time, I'm interested to know if there's anything Important I missed, as I formed my own beliefs about God and Jesus (partly in my "off" years, and partly during the five past years that I've been attending church).

It's been very nice so far. The OUMC folks have an incredible amount of energy for this class. They're in the kitchen every Tuesday night, starting about 4:00 pm, cooking a simple supper for us (well... maybe not quite so simple -- some of those wimmin can cook; I don't think it's the men; sorry to be sexist), there are a lot of people running around serving drinks, they have speakers every week from the church (mostly lay folk; this week, it was a fellow student in Disciple).

I wonder if UUMC can come up with this level of energy. I really need to get more involved with my own church, but, ya know... two nights per week plus a divorce is a gracious plenty right now.

Status update

Got the custody eval report. They recommended a 50-50 split and some sort of followup eval six months after the split.

So, now I'm looking for a house, on the assumption that we'll negotiate that my wife keeps the house and I move out.

Negotiations beginning in the next couple of weeks, I think.

Wheee!

1 Chronicles

So, we discussed 1st Chronicles in Disciple last Monday. I was supposed to have read it during the preceding week, but I hadn't done my reading every day like I should have. I did the first six or so chapters early on, but then stopped, and wound up doing the last 23 chapters Sunday night.

Whoosh! :-S , as they say.

So, the fact that 1 Chronicles is a great big list of names wasn't helped by my reading it that fast. I really do think there is a good reason for this huge list of names, and I wish I could have slowed down and really savored them. Here's some of it (1 Chron. 4). It's stultifying stuff:

¹ The sons of Judah: Perez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur, and Shobal. ² Reaiah son of Shobal became the father of Jahath, and Jahath became the father of Ahumai and Lahad. These were the families of the Zorathites. ³ These were the sons of Etam: Jezreel, Ishma, and Idbash; and the name of their sister was Hazzelelponi, ⁴ and Penuel was the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These were the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, the father of Bethlehem. ⁵ Ashhur father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah; ⁶ Naarah bore him Ahuzzam, Hepher, Temeni, and Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah. ⁷ The sons of Helah: Zereth, Izhar, and Ethnan. ⁸ Koz became the father of Anub, Zobebah, and the families of Aharhel son of Harum. ⁹ Jabez was honored more than his brothers; and his mother named him Jabez, saying, "Because I bore him in pain." ¹⁰ Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, "Oh that you would bless me and enlarge my border, and that your hand might be with me, and that you would keep me from hurt and harm!" And God granted what he asked.

¹¹ Chelub the brother of Shuhah became the father of Mehir, who was the father of Eshton. ¹² Eshton became the father of Beth-rapha, Paseah, and Tehinnah the father of Ir-nahash. These are the men of Recah. ¹³ The sons of Kenaz: Othniel and Seraiah; and the sons of Othniel: Hathath and Meonothai. ¹⁴ Meonothai became the father of Ophrah; and Seraiah became the father of Joab father of Ge-harashim, so-called because they were artisans.

But, it has little stories embedded in it, some of which happened to no-name people (and, yes, I picked this passage on purpose).

The big take-away I got from our session was that this list of people is full of names, some clearly recognizable (e.g., Judah, Esau) and some not so recognizable. What this meant to us was that the unknowns are connected to the greats; we unknowns are also connected to our greats (and our greats from the past), in one large family, essentially. It's pretty inclusive. We can imagine ourselves listed in this huge roster of names. (The cynical among us will note that it's almost completely male. Well, yeah, it's the Ancient Near East of 2500 years ago. Come on.)

Prov. 10:15 -- wealth vs. poverty

So, I've been reading Proverbs, off and on, as I try to make up for some reading I missed in my Bible study class (Disciple, yay Disciple, great class -- I may have mentioned it before :) ).

10:15 The wealth of the rich is their fortress; the poverty of the poor is their ruin.

I thought that was kind of challenging, the Bible putting wealth in a good light and poverty in a bad one, so I dug a bit more.

16 The wage of the righteous leads to life, the gain of the wicked to sin.

The annotation in my Bible refers to these two verses together. It says:

V. 15 is a neutral observation about the reality of wealth and poverty; v. 16 adds ethical comment on the gain of the wicked. Cf. 11.28 and 18.11, where the protection of wealth is declared to be illusory.

So...

11:28 Those who trust in their riches will wither, but the righteous will flourish like green leaves.

(the annotation for this verse and v. 30 (which I'm not quoting here) refers us to Ps. 1:3 and Ps. 92:12--14)

and

18:10 The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous run into it and are safe.

11 The wealth of the rich is their strong city; in their imagination it is like a high wall.

and the annotation on 18:10--11 says:

A proverb pair: The name of the Lord is reliable (Ps 61.3; 124.8); the protection of wealth may prove to be imaginary (10.15--16 [emphasis mine -- isn't it fun how all this stuff ties together?]; 11.4).

Neet, huh?

That's just my Bible. There's also the Oxford Commentary, which says

V. 15 contrast an advantage of wealth with a disadvantage of poverty. Wealth provides protection and security against the vicissitudes of life (cf. 18:11), whereas the poor have no resources to fall back on. For this the poor may sometimes have only themselves to blame (v. 4). But not all wealth is advantageous. How it is acquired is the test of whether it is an asset or a liability (v. 2) The instruction in 1:8--19 illustrates the liability of ill-gotten gain (cf. also 20:17; 21:6; 28:20). By contrast, the wealth that accrues through 'righteousness' [note the single quotes -- British book!], i.e., honesty and integrity, is a mark of divine blessing and provides for a long, secure, and anxiety-free life (v.22; cf 11:4).

And finally, my HarperCollins Commentary has the following:

Only one clearly observational, neutral saying is found: the poor are ruined by lack of goods, but wealth is the fortified city of the rich (10:15). However, this comment is immediately contextualized by v. 16 and later by v. 22. The sages would prefer to believe that wealth is a gift of Yahweh that confirms its possessor's righteousness. Otherwise, the standard act-consequence relationship is displayed throughout the chapter.

So, we do have this sort of view that good things happen to the righteous in this world, but I guess we can't quite accuse Proverbs of glorifying wealth.

You can make up your own mind on whether you agree with the commentaries. It's entirely possible that I'm taking things out of context. Anyway, food for thought.

(I recently heard a couple of references to "the prayer of Jabez" and "the gospel of prosperity," so I was a little sensitive to this when I ran across it.)

Praise the Source of Faith and Learning

I don't normally put up hymns, just like I don't normally put up prayers, but this one really struck me last Sunday when we sang it in church.

I love it when hymns have messages for me.

Praise the source of faith and learning who has sparked and stoked the mind with a passion for discerning how the world has been designed. Let the sense of wonder flowing from the wonders we survey keep our faith forever growing and renew our need to pray.

God of wisdom, we acknowledge that our science and our art and the breadth of human knowledge only partial truth impart. Far beyond our calculation lies a depth we cannot sound where your purpose for creation and the pulse of life are found.

May our faith redeem the blinder of believing that our thought has displaced the grounds for wonder which the ancient prophets taught. May our learning curb the error which unthinking faith can breed lest we justify some terror with the antiquated creed.

As two currents in a river fight each other's undertow till converging they deliver one coherent steady flow, may we blend our faith and learning till they carve a single course and our seeking and our yearning join in praising you their source.

Here's a link to the music, pardon the crappy midi rendering:

• http://www.hymnsite.com/fws/200420.mid
  
• http://www.hymnsite.com/fws/hymn.cgi?2004