F358: A Review

F358 constantly was pressuring me to take away the comfort of labels and try to understand abnormal practices as, well, normal. Each section presented in the class provided a different way to look at Jewish identity. The most important thing, I think, is to think about what offends us and realize that that is part of our own personal Jewish identity, not the rest of Judaism's. It's good to separate ourselves from labels, look at all the options, and then place ourselves again.
Even after all taht well-rounded talk, I still have not learned all I could from the class. I ended up labelling someone in my paper incorrectly, and the label itself offended them. I realized that a simple phrase can destroy someone's supposed identity, and in doing that I invalidated all I was supposed to learn from that class. I'm glad it happened, though, that offense. It finalized the idea that pretty much no one can be put in easy catagories, especially not Jews.

Chabad and AFTERdark: final paper

Rachel Harrison
Professor Cohen
F358: Jewish Identity Today
8 December 2006

Chabad-Labovitch and AFTERdark:
The Influence of Religious Outreach Programs on Campus

I entered the IU auditorium for the program called AFTERdark on November 6th, 2006, not knowing what the world of evangelical Christian events would reveal to me. Campus had swirled with rumors about the event during the last week; chalkings and taped down posters had suggested a free concert at the auditorium, but after some investigation I found out the evangelical Christian groups on campus decided to support and advertise an event which included the performer Jon McLaughlin and motivational Evangelical speaker Joe White. The event aimed to “empower college campuses in reaching students with the life-changing message of the cross of Christ” . Yet to say that evangelical Christian organizations are alone in their attempts to get young people involved would be false. The Chabad-Labovitch movement, focused on “bringing Jews back to Judaism,” has its influence on the Indiana University campus as well. Though the groups are sometimes seen to proselytize the community in different ways, the two are actually quite similar. After discussion with members of both organizations, it is clear that the groups use their influence in adjacent ways.
The Chabad-Labovitch movement began as a small “post-war community of Russian born Chasidim” but was propelled into a more prominent sect when Menachem Mendel Schneerson became the late Rebbe of the movement. The Rebbe preached Chasidic outreach more than his predecessors, and even years after his death Chabad organizations were spreading far and wide across the US. The young couples of Chabad found themselves branching out to places where there seems to be a big enough Jewish population to make an influence, even if they find themselves the only orthodox family in the town. They offer prayer services, meals on Fridays, Torah study, and other religious activities free of charge. They hold large Purim and Chanukah celebrations. Their website offers candle lighting times, Hebrew and Judaica games for kids, and articles on Chabad’s goals and beliefs. They may even give out candlesticks to Jewish women on the street in order to coax them to light the candles on Friday evening.
Chabad’s outreach, however, is very specialized. The goal is to reach every Jew in the world, and while their vision is hardly comprehensible, it does very clearly focus itself on the Jewish population. This goal is adhered to with miraculous sacrifice as “shlichim,” who find themselves packing their bags and moving to places like Zaire in order to spread the practice of Judaism throughout the world.
The AFTERdark organization has a similar, yet not as specialized, goal. Their website affirms that through their ministry, many young and disengaged college students have accepted Jesus. During the summer, the motivational speaker for AFTERdark, Joe White, and his wife, Debbie-Jo, own twelve Christian sports camps called Kanakuk Kamps. With their “sincere passion for the youth of this country” they devoted themselves to the camps, while preaching the word of their savior. Yet in the fall and spring, Joe White finds himself traveling to over 65 major college campuses in order to act out the part of the cross builder. AFTERdark came to the IU campus on November 6th. The organization paid for students involved in CRU and other evangelical campus organizations to advertise the free concert, yet not even them knew what exactly the event entailed. Though a couple dozen left after the free concert and before Joe White’s sermon, the majority of students (about 850) stay to hear him speak, perform, and evangelize.
Both Chabad and AFTERdark seem to take extreme measures to have the tragically uninvolved youth become in touch with their respective faiths. The organizations use similar tactics to accomplish this goal on the IU campus.
Symbols and Visuals
Though advertised as a free concert, it had barely been thirty minutes before Joe White replaced Jon McLaughlin on stage. He was introduced to the audience by a video recording of his family who praised his loyalty, passion, and authenticity, but did not mention his religious affiliation. After a twenty minute introduction given by Joe White himself, he exited the stage and entered as a famous Roman cross builder, coincidentally the one who was building the cross for Jesus. Not only did Joe enter with a torn and loose white shirt, but he also hauled on his back a 14-foot log. He carried this log through the auditorium and then up on stage, where he propped it up and began to axe away a portion where the cross-section would later be nailed in.
The sheer mass of this log was enough to make any audience member gawk. Here is a 65-year-old man carrying at least a hundred pounds through an audience and then up a flight of stairs to the stage. The event was made to create a venue where students could put things in a realistic perspective. Mark Nuzum, a staff member of Campus Crusade for Christ, explained the importance of the cross builder. He stated that the character “present[ed] the reality of who Jesus was. A lot of people…prefer to make things a story or more fictional by either ignoring it or by invalidating it. Having a cross up there and actually talking about it is a way of validating the fact that this a reality; something that did happen.”
Once the cross was built and erected, the cross builder once again became Joe White. He encouraged the youthful audience to purge their sins by writing them on pieces of paper that were then nailed to the cross he had built. Joe White performed a marriage in which the audience became “chained” to Christ through the purging of their sins. This was then solidified with the nailing of their sins to the cross. This type of symbolism is also seen during the ritual called Tashlich, in which Jews transfer their transgressions into a crumb of bread that is tossed into a running body of water. Though the cross and the water have intrinsic differences, they both are vessels through which sins are purged.
Another visual used in the AFTERdark program was the showing of clips from Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. It was shown after members of CRU erected right after the 14-foot cross on stage. With the cross dimly lit in the background, bloody clips of Jesus’ struggle to carry his burden up a hill and then his actual crucifixion lit up the auditorium. The visual thus made its full circle: the cross’s creation, the burden it produced, the crucifixion, and then symbol it represents.
Lauren Steiner, a devout Christian and advocator of AFTERdark, spoke to me about why she thought Passion of the Christ was shown at the event. When she went into the theatre, she and others decided to “acknowledge the sacrifice [Jesus] took in order to get [people] to heaven.” Yet she told me the movie holds two very strong, yet conflicting, morals: one being a “bang-bam, look what G-d did for you, don’t you feel guilty?” while another is a picture of the beautiful thing that G-d did for his people’s sake. These two strong messages often do not coincide in the viewers mind. Lauren commented that either you believe the movie portrays one or the other. In the case of AFTERdark, she thought Joe White attempting to show the more beautiful aspect of the crucifixion, laying less guilt on the sinner and more of an emphasis on the connection between G-d and humans. She contributes this to being part of a “new-wave” Christianity that has less about damnation and more about finding the truth and going to heaven.
The Chabad movement also uses symbols to perpetuate the adherence to rituals and laws. Chabad-Labovitch rabbis and followers believe in ahavat yisrael, or “love of all Jews.” This love is supposed to transcend all other longings, and perpetuate self-sacrifice in order to show that love. The Jewish people is seen as one body in the eyes of the Chabad-Labovitch movement; “when a Jew sins, the entire Jewish body is affected,” and visa versa, “when a Jew does a mitzvah, or obeying G-d’s commandments, the merit is enjoyed by all.”
The idea of ahavat yisrael is what propels the shlichim to abandon their comfort zone and live on the edge of poverty in order to do Jewish outreach. They are moved by the image of “lighting souls” of the Jewish people in their community. This outreach is a very physical thing, since mitzvot are mostly physical acts (dawning t’fillin, wearing a prayer shawl, lighting Shabbat candles, etc). By presenting the importance of using these symbols to disengaged Jews, they are fulfilling their own mitzvah of ahavat yisrael. By explaining how and when to use these religious items, the shlichim have integrated their symbols into the lives of the Jews around them
Building the cross and coaxing someone to dawn t’fillin come from similar motives. The presentation of the symbols provides meaning, which exhumes recognition whenever the affected person sees that symbol again. Both organizations rely on reminders through physical recognition.
Advertisement
AFTERdark and Chabad’s interest in getting people on campus to acknowledge them is projected almost entirely through advertisement. However, this is the main area in which Chabad and the AFTERdark ministry differ. In the advertisement, Chabad makes a clear statement of its religious affiliation while AFTERdark does not. This difference is one of ideology; Chabad’s mission is aimed completely at Jews, where as AFTERdark has a goal to save all non-believers (including those belonging to other religions).
AFTERdark advertised the event at the auditorium by handing out fake tickets to the event, taping up flyers, and posting the information for the event with chalk on the sidewalks outside buildings on campus. The posters and chalkings all read: What are you doing AFTERdark? Free concert at the IU Auditorium, Monday November 6 at 8 pm. CRU members wore t-shirts that read “It’s FREE!” on the front with the time and place on the back. Yet, when asked about the event itself, most CRU members did not know any details. An email from a CRU member was sent to Pete Stuttgen urging him to come to the event:
Hi everyone,
I know this email is kinda random...but with the whole campus being completely flooded with this AFTERdark stuff (I'm not sure if you have heard about it so I thought it would be cool if I personally invited people that I knew to the event!
So, I am inviting all of you to come tomorrow night, at 8pm, to the IU Auditorium for AFTERdark. It is a free program where Joe White, who has spoken at many big universities similar to IU and various NFL teams, will be giving a unique presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and what that can mean for you, and Jon McLaughlin is giving a concert. Again, this is all free, so don't worry about cost or anything. This means a lot to me, I would love it if you could make it! I know that you may be busy , but I also know that this really will be way worth your time and I think you might be surprised with what you hear. Hope to see you there!
Pete reacted to the email very strongly. He had not known what AFTERdark was before the email, and upon getting it wondered why AFTERdark decided to advertise without any hint as to the actual events of the evening. He told me in an interview that he thought by advertising the event in a secular way, more people were drawn to attend. Lauren Steiner also mentioned this in my interview with her. She said with the current anti-Christian sentiments on college campuses, it was no wonder that AFTERdark was advertised the way it was.
However, AFTERdark advertisements were “already printed” when given to CRU by Joe White. Both Mark Nuzum and Lauren Steiner disagree with the “bait and switch” tactics used by Joe White.
Chabad, on many college campuses, is extremely vocal about its presence and mission. The Chabad rabbis will often sit in main quads with booths passing out flyers for events while conversing with interested students. Yet on the IU campus they are barely visible. They show up once or twice a year at religion fairs, but tend to use word of mouth to advertise their events. Joel Dinin, a regular Chabad participator who attended AFTERdark with me, told me that the Rabbi at IU reaches people on a more personal level by focusing on the individual more than the masses. “He’s an incredibly sweet guy. If you’re a guy….he’ll shake your hand. During the prayer service your on his side of the mechitzah (the curtain that separates men from women in a religious service) so he’ll make sure that when they dance or anything like that he’ll make sure to give you special attention.”
Joel described how the Rabbi usually treats a new attendant at a Chabad service. No matter who they are or what background they have, the Rabbi will accommodate. Joel told me of the way “he will adjust the way he talks and the way he treats a person based on who they are” in order to make them feel more comfortable. He pays special attention to them, explains things, and is always friendly. It is only later, once the Rabbi is close to the attendant, the Rabbi will “begin to push” the attendant to discuss and learn with him. The concept of ahavat yisrael is displayed once again here. The Chabad Rabbi is more concerned with the enlightenment of one soul, while AFTERdark wants to reach the masses. However, events like AFTERdark present an interesting sequence of events: vague advertising, intense religious experience to the masses, and then a one-on-on follow up. Follow-Up
After going to Chabad for Friday night services, I was not contacted in any way. I was not put on an email list or called on the telephone. If I wanted, I could never step into that house or see the Rabbi again. After attending AFTERdark, I was both emailed and called by a CRU member. Lauren Steiner helped call attendants after the event to discuss with them how the felt and what they learned at AFTERdark. She informed me that many CRU members who “know their bible” volunteer to do follow-up in order to get more people involved with CRU.
These two contrasting ways of keeping members provides an interesting parallel. While Chabad gets its members by being warm and hospitable while they are in the house, AFTERdark provides CRU a chance to do personal follow-up after the event.
Goals
Chabad-Labovitch and AFTERdark provide interesting contrast and similarities to the proselytizing world. Both a presence on campus with followers, they outreach to the community around them in attempt to show the truth. Even though the organizations may use different tactics of advertisement, they use the power of recognition with symbols and one-on-one contact to bring students into the organization. The communities, though seemingly opposite, show similar goals and processes in their attempts to reach the disengaged youth of their religion.

Left Behind

I'm glad I had an excuse to read the first Left Behind book for this class. I remember when the first one came out, and everyone was reading them. Even in my middle school I saw kids reading them in the hallway, teachers reading them on their breaks....kinda crazy. I didn't really know what it was until I understood what the second coming was, and then I realized what a big deal the Left Behind books meant to society at large. The fact that all of my friends and teachers are reading about the end of days is a frightening prospect for a young Jew.
I also want to talk briefly about the reactions I got when I was found reading Left Behind in public places. My roommate, the first to see me, was really confused and when I told her why I was reading it, ended up confiding in me that she had read the first two before realizing it was anti-semetic. When my Christian friend Pete saw it on my floor he gasped, "Why are you reading this?!" He also confessed that he had read it, but was completely struck that a Jew would want to read it. I told him it was for a class. He almost gave me the reaction that clued me into, "I'm a Jew, I'm almost not allowed to read it" as if it was a secret text for evangelical Christians. Also, when I was in Chicago, my family and I were having pizza when my cousin Sarah brought up the Left Behind series out of nowhere, not knowing I was reading it. She said she was embarrassed to hve read all the way to four, before putting them down when she realized how anti-semetic they were. When she found out I was reading the first one, she said it was an interesting idea to read this for a class and see how Jews are protrayed in these types of Christian novels.
For some reason, reading Left Behind was a hard thing for me to do. I thought of it as one big scare tactic, and at times it did scare me and made me wish I wasn't reading it. The writing style, kind of bland and easy, made it even more scary to me; it was written for the masses, for the people who worked at Walmart and didn't have a college education. For the majority of America...those who would never be able to understand Revelations. It's ability to influence it was scared me most, but I'm glad I read it.
I read an article about the Jews portrayed in Left Behind by the Anti-Defamation league who claimed that the book wasn't anti-semetic, just that the authors were able to imagine a world in which there were no Jews. All but 144,000 get killed during Armagedon in horrible ways, and it's not that the authors want this for the Jews, they just know it will happen when Christ comes back. The Jews are essentially a pawn in this book. A means to an end, in which all the Jews die unfortunately. But in class, someone said that the evangelical Christians are pouring money into Isreal because of their belief that Christ will come when all the Jews are there, and it is my opinion that this is not a bad thing. I don't see the rapture happening any time soon, so it's ok by me that they give money to Israel. It would be hard to convince them that the Jews are more than just pawns, so in the mean time, Israel might as well take their money.

CRU meeting

I decided to head over to the CRU weekly meetings this Thursday with my friends Lauren and Pete. I didn't ge to stay the whole night because I had a lot of homework, but the beginning was definately interesting and if you're looking for an experience, I would recommend going. It began with a concert, as I'm now beginning to understand that most evangelical Christian events begin with. Apparently the guy who was singing and playing guitar is hired by CRU and is a staff member, their own personal song leader. The tunes were catchy and reminded me a lot of songs sung at NFTY or URJ camp. You know- really satisfying chord progressions and lyrics that spoke about all the wonderful thing that would happen when one accepts Christ in their heart.
After the concert, a man went up and gave a sermon and then they worshipped together. That was the most interesting part to me. The sermon was interactive, persuasive, and heart-warming. Though at times is seemed like bullshit to me, I'm sure people were very moved by his stories. He explained that once you accept Jesus it's hard to stay on his path, since it often seems like his deeds are interruptions in your life. For example, he explained that one day on his way out of the library Jesus told him to go back inside because there was someone in there who was ready to accept Christ but needed his help. He said, "Oh G-d, I just want to go home and be with my kids and have dinner..." but Jesus insisted. So he went back in and met a Korean guy named Amwoo who wasn't a believer but became one after his converstion with this speaker. I thought it was really interesting, how his interruptions from Christ were all for the sake of passing the word on. There wasn't any idea of doign just a good deed in general, but just "planting the seed of Christ in their heart" and then, I guess, everything would work out for them after that. It's odd because in Judaism, it's often not distinguished to whom we place our good deeds. We just place them, because everyone is needy. It's often that there isn't much of an agenda, and certainly not conversion.
After the sermon there was more singing, and then I left about 1.5 hours after it had begun. I'm glad I went, though. I think it will help me on my paper and has given me an interesting insight to the way CRU thinks about their peers at school and how the will of Christ plays in their lives.

Borat

Hmmm...What an interesting film. I wasn't going to see it simply because I didn't have time recently, but I spent the night at my cousin's house last night and he decided he wanted to see if before returning back to school. So I went, payed 8 bucks, and sat through an "anti-semetic and highly offensive" film for an hour and a half.
Borat was interesting. I think its purpose was to make the audience laugh at offensive things, and then to have them later reflect why they were laughing and react in that way to the material presented. It's a good tactic, I think, to make people uncormfortable so that they will think about their upbringing and to what extent they mirror the people in the film. Although extreme, it did make me think about American and how in places I'm not travelled can really have a surprising view on women and minorities. I'm not sure to what extent Borat was scripted or ad libbed, but it was a scary protrayal of America.
I also noticed that the language they spoke was a mix between Hebrew and gabaligook. I could actually understand what they were saying without the subtitles, just because of the Hebrew. Strange concept, that most of Americans wouldn't catch that the two men running away from the cute old Jewish couple are speaking about their fright in Hebrew.
I realize that my opinion of the movie (not four stars...) doesn't necessarily align with the importance of the film. Almost everyone I know saw it, and reacted in different ways, but the point is that they reacted. I think it made a pretty clear message, and thought frightening at times, I found myself laughing through most of it even though in retrospect I didn't think it was that funny.

THE ACTION AGAINST SOL SCHUMANN

Come see the Action Against Sol Schumann!
Thursday- 10 pm
Saturday- 10 pm
Sunday- 3 pm
It's FREE in the University Theater in the old theatre building. It's a very interesting play- it chronicles a holocaust survivor who is being prosecuted because he lied on his application for US citizenship when he didn't include the fact that he was a capo (a Nazi helper in the camps). The play creates dialogue between Sol and his family, and addresses how different people react to the same situation.
The most interesting aspect of the show, I think, is the differences between Aaron and Michael, Sol's two sons. They both find out their father was a capo at the same time, and while Michael feel justified knowing his father is a good man based on how Michael himself was raised, Aaron raises doubts about the validity of his father's love. Sol also runs into trouble at his local synagogue, who decide that they can't pray with someone who was a capo in the holocaust.
It seems like a part of his past that he tried to hide has come to call again, and memories haunt him as his family begins to turn away from him.
My favorite scene of the play is a dialogue between Paul the prosecuter and another interested party, who isn't directly involved in the case but requested to meet with Paul. The informal meeting turns to the subject matter of is persecuting a Jew who was in one way a victim and in another a monster a good idea in the public eye. Will it seem like the US government is condeming a Jew who had no other decision? And on the other hand, would it be wrong to not follow through on this one just because Sol is a Jew? Does being a Jew in the holocaust, no matter what role was played, make someone a victim? The scene ends open ended, both make amazing points and I myself still think about this particular conflict that is presented in the play. Though I've seen the scene probably about 20 times, it still makes me think about identity when it is compromised. Sol essentially became another person during this time- he claims because it was his duty to live when the rest of his family was killed. He had to live, no matter what. And because he did these things, because he killed other Jews in the camps, his sons are alive today.
I think it's a very interesting play, obviously. Everyone should come see it, you can post about it on your blog! but more importantly, it addresses some of the issues of identity we're talking about in this class (including the role of Jewish theater).
Hope to see everyone there!!

Mizrachi Women Writers

During class Monday, I caught myself wondering what the purpose of these writings were. I did the reading- they seemed to have a pretty common theme of finding acceptance of who there were, even if it was a struggle, and coming to terms with their heritage even if they smothered it during their childhood.
Now- the purpose of the book is somewhat stated in the forward: that this book should open up more avenues of understand amongst the Ashkenazic community. Sometimes, however, I catch myself thinking "But who actually reads this book? Who cares about tthis stuff, besides the people who are already accepting of different Jewish heritage?" Take this class as a case study- we are learning about Jewish Identity. I think it's a fair assumption to think that the class is a forward thinking, equality favoring class. And besides learning about some case studies of oppression towards these women, I'm assuming that the class still believes in equality in Jewish communities for these women. For some reason I see women of American Jewish communities sitting in their book clubs shaking their heads and the oppression that these women endured, agreeing that it was time to take action. But what would be their plan?
Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that material like this isn't important to spreading equality and awareness, but on the other hand it's hard to judge how far collections like this one move society towards a more liberal and acceptive stance for the women outlined in this book.
What do people think about this? What do you think the purpose of this book is?

AFTERdark Part Two

Now for my reaction to AFTERdark.
I'm going to start from the beginning, which was the advertising. I will openly admit that once I found out what the event was, the advertising infuriated me. It in no way even hinted at the subject matter of the event, and didn't speak about Joe White and his sermon he would be giving. It surprised me that AFTERdark felt the need to go out of its way to keep the actual content of the show under wraps. While talking to some people, I got a common reaction that Christians who were "questioning" wouldn't come if they knew what it was. Basically, it was a ploy, or gimmick, to get people into the seat in the auditorium. Interesting.
The actual event, however, was completely different than what I thought it would be. There was no stereotypical hellfire and damnation speech, and I didn't feel that the Jews or any other religion was attacked for their opinion. I wasn't confronted when I chose not to participate in the binding nailing excersice. I felt comfortable simply observing the event, which I did not expect.
I thought AFTERdark used interesting ways to get people interesting. A lot of media was used, and I think Joe White definately understands that in this day and age, media (movies and music and visuals) are very important. Everything seemed to be very loud, extrememe, and colorful; but I think that simply reflects our culture and what we see every day on TV, movies, and radio.
when talking to my friend Lauren about AFTERdark, she pointed out to me that evne though I found the events interesting, it still all went over my head. She helped organize AFTERdark, and is an evangelical Christian. She has never tried to convert me, and is always fair and open to hearing my opinions and about my religion. She said, though, that if you weren't already willing to accept Jesus in your heart, that AFTERdark did nothing more than provide a concert and short movie viewing, with some crazy guy building a cross. She said it was important to approach people in babysteps, and that she thought AFTERdark was in one sense too much. I realized that (though she never said this) it was would have been a successful program if, for isntance. I had been moved by Joe White and his sermon. I wasn't, of course, so the program seemed pointless to her. She said that she already loves Jesus, her friends at CRU already love him...they don't need ot hear what Joe White has said because they've heard it a thousand times. They were there to support new people who wanted to accept Christ into their heart. She's partly in charge of follow up with AFTERdark attendees, and she says that for the most part people weren't willing to accept Jesus based just on Joe White's speech because he went too extreme too fast.
That all makes sense to me. On the other side, I think it gave a more acceptable framework to the Christian evangelical movement. Although many weren't willing ot accept Jesus right then and there, by not blaming them and not calling them sinners, AFTERdark opened their eyes to a more peaceful and loving sect of christianity, if you will. I think often evangelical groups try to guilt audiences into believing, by persuading them that they're bad people who need to reform if they want to go to heaven. This did not do that.
Of course in my eyes, the event was extreme and there were definately some people doing "witnessing" and holding up their cell phones, but it was different from what I expected. the symbolism of the cross and nailing sins to it reminded me of tashlich, a Jewish ritual done around Yom Kippur in which sins are manifest in pieces of bread that are then cast down a river. These symbols are everywhere in religion, and I saw them appear here as well.

AFTERdark Part One

I attended AFTERdark on Monday, November 6th at the IU auditorium. I've decided to break my blog up in two and discuss AFTERdark as what I observed and then what my opinion is. To say the least, the program was very interesting and I think poses some important questions about religion as a whole, and specifically the role of evangelical Christianity on this campus.
I was about 10 minutes late for AFTERdark since I was coming from rehearsal, but I arrived to find around 850 people in the auditorium. I brought Joel Dinin (a Chabadnik) and Pete Stuttgen (a practicing but not evangelical Christian) with me, and we sat in the second half of the auditorium since the first was full. The concert was going on when we got there, a man named Jon McGloughlan and his band. It was strange, because I kept searching for the word "Jesus" or "Him" in the songs, but actually couldn't find them. His songs tended to be more about politics, love (maybe for G-d, but I wasn't sure), and experiences. The lyrics weren't preachy in any way, and Jon was actually a very talented musician on the whole. The band only played for about half an hour, however, which was interesting since the event was advertised as a concert. I took the titles down of some of the songs: "Human," "Industry," "Indiana," "People." Seems like he enjoys those one word titles... I took a look at Jon's website before I went to the concert, and it seemed odd but there was not much there to suggest that his band was Christian. I asked my friend Pete about why he thought this was, and he said that less people might listen to them if they advertised that, and since they are aiming at a bigger audience they don't want the "stigmatism" of being a Christian band. After the concert ended, about two dozen people left but most of the audience remained, and that's when Joe White came out.
Joe White looked about 60. He came out wearing jeans and a black t-shirt, and took the mic and made cracks about the types of people he had met here. He then gave a short history of his life; he played football, liked to hunt and golf, is passionate, loyal, authentic, a father of four, and a grandfather of five. He then showed a video of his family in the back of his house in the woods. They, of course, all spoke very highly of him but never mentioned Christianity of Jesus. He then began talking about how he met his wife Debbie; how they went sailing (and even hinted at having premarital sex with her) and how he asked her to marry him on top of a mountain with a ring hidden inside a cracker jack box. Up until this point, about 9:00, there had been no mention of Christianity or Jesus.
Then Joe said he was going to introduce us to a new character in human history, the cross builder. McGloughlin came out on stage and sang a song (lyrics that stuck out for me: "losing every part of me just to open up your eyes to something you'd never see..." I'm assuming that meant trying to show other people the light of Jesus of G-d). When Jon was done singing, Joe appeared in the aisle of the auditorium carrying a 14 foot log (must have weighed at least 100 pounds). He carried it on stage, all teh while introducing himself as the best cross builder in the land. When he got it on stage, he began to say that this cross belonged to Jesus, who claimed he was the song of G-d. The cross builder distinguished himself as disbeliever, saying tha the wasn't sure if there was a G-d let alone that Jesus was his son. He concluded with the idea that if Jesus wasn't alive again on Sunday, he would be forgotten just liek the rest of them. All during this speach, Joe is actually building the cross. He axed off a cross section and nailed in the top cross.
Then Joe took off his cross builder garb and changed back into his black shirt. He gave statistics saying that tens of thousands of people in AFrica, South America, China, and Russia are being converted to Chrisitniaty each day. he commented on how could Jesus be nothing if he is the source of controversy for thousands of years? I quote: "My kind if indespensable, incromprehensible..." Then Joe showed the bloody clips from Passion but I didn't watch it cause I didin't want to see his hands nailed into the wood. Ew. When the lights come up, Joe reveals to his audience that he didn't find Jesus until he realized he had Lukemia. After he found out, he said Jesus came to him and held him in his arms, and became the father he never had, and since he has recovered. He told the story of a man who has a child with extreme cyclic fibrosis who ran the Iron Man marathon in Hawaii carrying his song in a boat, on his bike, and in a wheel chair as he rain the race. Joe said this is a testament to Jesus' love- that this father is like the father Jesus can be to all of all...he can "carrry us over the finish line."
After the video clip of the race, Joe picked up the cross and carried it to the other side of the stage. He said that he was chained to Jesus through the cross, and that Jesus died for him so he is always in debt to Jesus for being saved. He put the cross down, and nailed some sins he had written on a piece of paper to the cross, and said now he is chained in debt but in return he gets a loving father. He then welcomed the audience to take a small chain link to remind them of their debt, and then to write sins on a piece of paper to be nailed to the cross. At first, only about 10 people went up. But then, after they raised the house lights and Jon came out with a girl to sing and play a song, about 80 percent of the audience went up to get their chain and nail their sins. Joe went around the audience giving away hugs.
After about 20 minutes people wre back in their seats, he had us stand and sing a song with him. Then, he "married" us to the cross and to Jesus by having us repeat a vow to love Christ. People were holding up their cell phones and waving them around, while "witnessing" which is holding up one's hands to feel the light of Jesus. Joe told us the difference between being a Christian and being chained- for example: "When you're a Chrstiain, you have the bible, but when you're chained you have a love letter..." etc.
then on the back of the ticket, there was a big heart with a place for a name and email address. Joe told the audience to check the heart if we were saved today, and put a star in the heart if htis was the first time we've felt the light of Jesus. Then he collected them, and AFTERdark came to a close.

Jewish Studies Programs

In class, one of the questions asked was "What is the purpose of the Jewish Studies program versus the Hillel on Campus?" Since there was not time to address it in class, I thought it would be nice to talk about it here. Being a Jewish studies major, I feel there is a big difference between Hillel's purpose in my life and the Jewish Studies program here. In class someone touched upon how Jewish Studies courses might make a Jew feel more Jewish, or closer in tact with their Jewish identity. To a certain extend I might agree with that, similar to learning about African American history and culture if you were an African American, but religiously I turn to Hillel and not to the Jewish Studies program. In no way has the program ever made me feel more religious or influenced me to practice in a different way.
I also thought it was interesting that Prof. Cohen brought up the fact that most Jewish Studies programs are funded outside the university. Does that mean that if they decided Jewish Studies wasn't worthwhile the program would be gone? Why do donors feel the need to give money to a Jewish Studies program? In my mind, it seems like Jewish culture and history is just as important as any other culture studies program here at IU, yet at the same time Jewish Studies is somehow exempt from the overall "Religious Studies."
For me, Jewish Studies is supposed to give me a more secular point of view when it comes to Judaism as a history, a religion, and as a culture. I plan to go to HUC for Cantorial School and I know the history I learn there willl be much more halachalically based, but here I can get a different perspectivee (which one is "right" doesn't matter much to me). I think that if there are enough students around to be drawn to the program, as I was, then there is some monumental purpose for it, which probably varies from student to student.